PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Welfare Spending - 15 July 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected any amendments. I call the shadow Secretary of State to move the motion.

I beg to move,

That this House believes the two-child benefit cap should remain in place and that households with a third or subsequent child born from 6 April 2017 claiming Universal Credit or Child Tax Credit should not receive additional funding, because those who receive benefits should make the same decisions about having children as those who do not; further believes that lifting the cap would exacerbate a benefits culture which is unfair on the taxpayers who pay for it and unfair on those who become trapped on benefits, because those who can work, should work; and generally supports further changes to reduce welfare spending and ensure that benefits are there only for those who need them.

All of us have to make difficult choices in life about what we can afford. Many of us here are fortunate, but one of those choices will have been the number of children we have. We may wish that such an important decision were not tainted by something as unromantic as money, but that is the hard fact of the matter. Children are wonderful—I say that as the mum of three teenagers—but bringing them up is an expensive business. As Conservatives we believe in the importance of family, in personal responsibility, in fairness, and as families and as a society, in living within our means. That is why today we are calling on all Members to affirm our commitment to a policy that reflects those principles.

Let me take a step back for a moment and reflect on the situation we are in as a country. We have 28 million people in Britain who are now working to pay the wages, benefits and pensions of 28 million others. More than half of all households received more in benefits and benefits in kind than they have paid in taxes. To spell that out, more people are net recipients than net contributors. That is happening right now, and with every day that passes, spending on benefits is going up and up. Health and disability benefits alone are set to hit £100 billion by the end of the decade. That is more than we spend on defence, on education and on policing.

While it might seem kind to spend more on welfare, it is not. It is not kind to those trapped in the welfare system and written off to a lifetime on benefits. As we embark on a doom loop of uncontrolled spending, higher taxes, struggling businesses, entrepreneurial exodus, rising unemployment and then more people out of work and on benefits, it is not kind to those who lose their jobs and their incomes in that cycle of misery. If the moment comes when we cannot afford to provide welfare even to those in desperate need, it most definitely will not be kind to them, the very people our welfare safety net is meant to be there for.

The shadow Minister talks about kindness. Does she agree, therefore, with the Children’s Commissioner for England, who has said that children in England are now living in “Dickensian levels” of poverty? A principal element of that is the two-child cap. What element of kindness does the shadow Minister see present in that unfairness?

I do not agree with the hon. Member. I am going to talk about poverty in a moment, so if he will just hold on, he will hear my view on that point.

This is a ticking time bomb. If we do not solve this problem, our economy will collapse, yet opposite me sit members of this Labour Government who have just shown us, with the welfare chaos over the past couple of weeks, that they will not, and indeed cannot, fix this. In fact, they are just making it worse.

If hon. Members cast their minds back to early 2020, they will remember that Labour was in the midst of a leadership election. The now Prime Minister made a clear and unequivocal commitment to

“scrap…punitive sanctions, two-child limit and benefits cap.”

Then, once he had secured the leadership of the Labour party and the election neared, he changed that tune. He said Labour was not going to abolish the two-child limit. He acknowledged the need to take tough decisions and not to make unfunded spending promises, and on this we can agree. But saying that he would take tough decisions is not the same as actually taking them.

Take for example the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, now just called the Universal Credit Bill, which Labour voted through last week. It was meant to save £5 billion. The first U-turn brought that down to £2 billion, and the next U-turn then brought it down to—well, the Minister on the Front Bench at the time could not tell us, but the consensus is that it will now cost the taxpayer around £100 million.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that, as a result of that Bill, one of the things that is most shocking is that in due course it will actually pay someone more to be on welfare than to work full time on the minimum wage?

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the problem of a welfare trap, where people would better be better off on benefits than working full time on the minimum wage.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I will first make a little progress, but then I will be happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

Last week’s welfare fiasco saw a Bill that was meant to save money become a Bill that will cost money. We have also seen the fiasco of the winter fuel payments cut, with the Government having to row back on their tough talk because taking money from low-income pensioners is not, in fact, the way to make savings. And now we are debating the future of the two-child limit, which Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have indicated is the next tough choice that they are not going to make.

My hon. Friend talks about tough choices. Does she agree that families that are in work make tough choices every single day, about what they can afford and how they spend their money, and that those who receive benefits should really have to make the same tough choices?

My hon. Friend makes an important and thoughtful point. Many families, whether they are living off benefits or in work, would like to have more children but have to make these difficult choices about what they can afford. This is a point about fairness.

I know that many Labour Members passionately believe that the limit should go, and they will make arguments today about child poverty as if they were the only ones who care about it—[Interruption.] For the avoidance of doubt, that is not true. Our difference of opinion is about what to do about it. I think all of us are at a loss to know what the Prime Minister believes in. By contrast, we know what we believe in and we know why we are here. That is why we have brought forward this debate on the two-child limit, because somebody has to make the case for fiscal responsibility, for living within our means, for fairness, for ensuring that work pays and for keeping the two-child cap.

I want to be clear that all of us—including those of us on the Opposition Benches—want children to have the best possible start in life. Let us also be clear about what the two-child limit actually is, because I note that some Members from other parties are confused. The two-child limit restricts the amount of additional universal credit that families receive for having children to the first two children only, with some sensible exceptions, such as for twins or non-consensual conception. The cap does not apply to child benefit, which is available to all families with incomes of up to £80,000 for every child, regardless of the number of children in a family.

I am proud to be a member of the party of Wilberforce, Shaftesbury and Disraeli, who all understood that it is essential to free people from need, and that in that effort the state can be a force for good. But in freeing people from need we should not limit them to a life of dependency. It is entirely possible to believe that although welfare can be a force for good, so too can personal responsibility, and responsibility means making the kinds of choices that my hon. Friend has set out.

I could not put it better than my right hon. Friend.

We know that bringing up children is expensive and important. When working couples have to make tough decisions about whether they can afford to start a family in the first place, they should not be made to pay more in taxes to fund their neighbour to have a third, fourth or fifth child. Someone in a job does not get paid more just because they have another child. If we are worried about people getting caught in a benefits trap where it pays more to be on welfare than in work, how much worse would it be with neither the two-child benefit nor the benefits cap? It would mean benefits increased by thousands. When I say thousands, the House of Commons Library has told me that a family with five children would get more than £10,000 extra a year and a family with eight children would get more than £20,000 extra a year. That is more than the after-tax income of someone working full time on the minimum wage.

Does the hon. Member seriously believe that any family anywhere in the country will take seriously the Conservative party lecturing them on personal and fiscal responsibility, when this is the party that not only brought the economy to its knees through the uncosted promises of Liz Truss’s Government, but partied in the back garden of No. 10 when the rest of us were under covid restrictions?

If I could take the hon. Lady back a bit, she might remember when we came into office in 2010, and we had to bring down the deficit year after year to get the country’s finances under control.

Giving children the best start in life is not as simple as handing out more money. It is about giving parents the community support they need as they encounter the challenges of bringing up a child, which is why we launched the family hubs. It is about education, but school teachers around the country are being let go. It is about growing up in a household with someone in work, but across the country people are being made redundant because of the Chancellor’s jobs tax.

I know that I will not win over everyone here with my argument. For instance, I do not expect to convince the four remaining Reform MPs, because their leader has said that he would remove the two-child limit—the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) believes that is the right thing to do and said that he is not finished yet on benefit giveaways. But asking the taxpayer for ever more in taxes to pay for their neighbour’s benefits is not the right thing to do. The country, taxpayers and future generations cannot afford this. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Cabinet Ministers have been unable to rule out more tax rises this autumn. Businesses, working people, pensioners, savers, homeowners—whose pocket will be picked next?

Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility warned that the UK’s finances are in a very “vulnerable position”. Now more than ever we need the Government to take the tough decisions—but will they? I know Labour Back Benchers are itching to vote to scrap the limit, but where are the Government on this? Will they take the position of the Prime Minister in 2020, in 2024 or now, or will they have to abstain because the Government just do not know? Soon we will see.

Only the Conservatives understand the importance of personal responsibility, fairness and living within our means. Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens and Reform all voted last week for more welfare spending. Will they do the same today, or will they vote with us to back the people getting up every morning, going out to work, doing the hard yards, making the hard choices and working hard to build our country?

Well, there we have it—as ever, all politics and no economics. The Conservatives come to this House to talk not about the people of this country, but about themselves. In March, we found out the truth of the Tory record on child poverty, which is highly relevant to their motion today. From 2010 to 2024, the number of poor children skyrocketed by nearly 1 million. After 14 years in office, the Conservatives left us with 4.5 million of our children growing up without the ability to make ends meet. That is what Tory Governments do, just as they did from 1979 to 1997, when child poverty more than doubled, leaving 4.2 million children in relative poverty. The Conservatives can come to this House to defend the failures of the last Government as many times as they like, as their motion does today. Every single time, we will remind them of their record.

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way if the hon. Gentleman apologises to the 4.5 million children in this country growing up in poverty.

The Minister and Labour Members are in absolute denial about the state of the country. The Government came in with growth as their No. 1 mission, and what have they done? They have brought growth to an absolute, shuddering halt. They have done what every Labour Government do, which is to increase unemployment. Who does that hurt the most? It is the poorest. From an age point of view, who does that hurt the most? It is the young. An increase in youth unemployment of 45% was a scar on this country that the last Labour Government left. It was the Conservative Government that outgrew Germany, France, Japan and Italy over the 14 years we were in power. She should be ashamed of her record, even though it is only 12 months old.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that lengthy intervention. I deeply regret that he does not feel the need to look his own record in the face and, more than anything, that he has nothing to say to the 4.5 million children in this country without the means to make ends meet.

Emergency food parcels distributed by Trussell Trust food banks have increased by 164% over the past 10 years, and 1.1 million children are living in households that have gone to a food bank over the past 12 months. In this country we now have more food banks than police stations. Are the Conservatives proud of that record? I hope not.

Nobody in this country should be begging—no child should face that indignity. The consequences are serious. Over 80% of parents say they struggle to get basic support, such as a GP appointment, or to see a health visitor. Schools are in an attendance crisis, with one in five kids now missing a day a fortnight or more, and it is worse for poor kids. That is the Conservatives’ record. These failures for our children will echo down the years and will turn up in our nation’s life expectancy, the benefits bill they say they care about and, worst of all, in the sense of hopelessness that far too many people in this country now have.

Do the Conservative Opposition have a response on their record? As we have heard, no, they do not. Have they apologised to families in the UK? As we have heard, no, they have not. Have they reflected on their record? As we have heard, no, they have not. They bring a motion to this House to do none of the above, but to agree with the Tory party policy from 10 years ago. They are the same Conservative party that created the mess we are in now, and they have no regrets. Their motion talks of a benefits trap, and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) just repeated that. They will be awfully cross when they find out who spent £3 billion on the universal credit system that they now say traps people in poverty. They promised that universal credit would get people into work; instead, it pushed people into incapacity benefits.

I gently say to the Minister that she and her Back-Bench colleagues do not have a monopoly on talking about poverty. If she really cared about poverty, she would not have allowed a policy to be brought before this House last week that, before it was changed, would have put 150,000 extra children into poverty. If she genuinely believes in tackling poverty, why is she still standing at the Dispatch Box as a Minister, because she should have resigned for putting more children into poverty under her proposals?

I do not believe for a moment that it is just people in the Labour party who care about poverty in this country. Former Conservative Members of this House who were discharged from their duties by previous Prime Ministers, and many other Members of different parties over many years, have cared about poverty. We should deal with facts in this place, and I am merely repeating, for the benefit of the House, the Conservative Government’s record on poverty. I will cover the details of the child poverty taskforce in my speech. If the hon. Gentleman wishes at any point to make representations to the taskforce of Ministers dealing with child poverty in this country, I will happily receive them.

On the question of facts, will the Minister give way?

Let me make a little progress, if I may.

The official Opposition’s motion speaks of a “benefits culture”. I simply ask them this: who made that culture happen? Who was in charge for the past decade and a half? Either the last Tory Government were powerless to stop that culture being created, or they were responsible for it—which is it? Until they can see the consequences of their own time in office and accept the damage that they did, which they clearly cannot, no one will hear a single word that they say.

There are, however, people in this country who deserve a hearing: those who have experienced childhood under the last Tory Government. As the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) mentioned, we heard last week from the Children’s Commissioner —who, I point out, was appointed under the Conservatives—on her work capturing the opinions of children who have grown up in poverty because of the policies espoused by Conservative Members.

The Minister is making an important speech with which many Labour Members will agree. She will be aware that 59% of families with more than two children and which are on universal credit are in work. That is far from the feckless parent caricature that we have heard from the Conservatives. More importantly, does she agree that the children should come first, so we should urgently scrap the two-child cap as quickly as possible?

As my hon. Friend rightly points out, in the speech by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), we heard yet again from a Tory party that wants only to ignore the facts in favour of dividing people in this country, as it did for the many years it was in government. That is not what people want. People want this country to move forward together.

I will mention a few contributions by the Children’s Commissioner for England, and then I will give way further.

We heard from the commissioner that children think that free breakfast clubs and school meals are important. That is why we have begun the roll-out of free breakfast clubs in all primary schools and last month announced the expansion of free school meals to all on universal credit, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament.

Young people told the commissioner about how they absorb their parents’ money worries. One 16-year-old girl said:

“I worry about money quite a lot. I see myself as quite approachable to my mum so my mum will tell me absolutely everything.”

Children need to grow up without that stress, so we have introduced the fair repayment rate for universal credit households, so that a debt to the Government does not keep families poor, which will help 700,000 households with children.

I am mindful of two of her predecessors in Birkenhead. The first is F. E. Smith, the great Tory, who talked about “all must have prizes”. Sometimes, in our modern Britain, it feels that all must have state support. The second is the late Frank Field, who is much regarded and revered in this House for his honesty about welfare reform. The Minister is right that successive Governments have failed to grasp this nettle. The truth is that the relationship between the state and the individual has changed over time. We need a welfare system that focuses support on those in the greatest need. She surely believes that, and that requires bold welfare reform. Is she up for that or not?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for reminding me of two of my predecessors. I cannot claim to have known the former, but I did know Frank Field very well. Frank and I talked many times, particularly with regard to Birkenhead, about his belief in the value of work. He wanted to see our shipyard thrive and young people in Birkenhead grow up with the pride of employment. I like to think that when the Prime Minister came to Cammell Laird shipyard recently to talk about the value of good work in Birkenhead, Frank would have felt very proud.

Will the Minister give way?

I will continue for just a moment.

All the young people who spoke to the commissioner could not have been clearer about the challenge of learning in overcrowded bedrooms. They were clear and direct about the shame of not always being able to keep clean because of a lack of hot water. I am deeply proud that we have committed funding for social housing to get children out of temporary accommodation, and expanded the warm home discount for all those on universal credit who are eligible. To ensure that the next generation of families experience a friendly face and have a place to play, we have expanded Best Start family hubs to every local authority.

As I said earlier, those are just some of the changes being brought about thanks to the child poverty taskforce chaired by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and for Education.

The family hubs are a great thing. The Minister said that they have gone to every local authority, but, if I have read the data correctly, none has gone to South Shropshire. Will she look into that and see whether we can get them there?

I will ask the Minister with responsibility for family hubs to write directly to the hon. Gentleman and work with him on that suggestion.

From the word go on taking office, the Prime Minister wasted no time in setting up the taskforce of Ministers to analyse the situation for our children in poverty.

If I recall correctly, from the get-go, the Labour party suspended seven Members of its parliamentary party for voting to scrap the two-child cap. The Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), asked her very clearly whether she believes that the two-child cap should be scrapped, but she did not answer. Perhaps now she will. Does she believe that the cap should be scrapped—yes or no?

I will come to the two-child limit in a moment, but let me correct the right hon. Gentleman: the issue then was Members voting to amend the King’s Speech.

From the word go on taking office, the Prime Minister wasted no time in setting up the taskforce of Ministers to analyse the situation for our children in poverty and to identify the most cost-effective ways of helping them to experience better childhoods. Our child poverty strategy will be published later this year, but, as I have said, we have already taken steps that we believe will help to mitigate the worst effects of 14 Tory years. Just yesterday, the Chancellor announced the better futures fund, the world’s largest social outcomes fund, which will be backed by £500 million of Government funding over 10 years to support vulnerable children, young people and their families.

I have given way a lot, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am worried that you will be quite cross with me if I keep giving way, so I will make progress.

I did say that I would give way to the hon. Gentleman, so let me do so before I finish my speech.

The Minister is extraordinarily gracious. She has rightly talked about universal credit, and what she says is very interesting indeed. I have constituents on legacy benefits who are—I think this is the right word—“migrating” to universal credit. The trouble is that they have to wait five weeks until they get their first cash. How will they make ends meet? What about the direct debits? I worry about that. Perhaps the wonderful group of Ministers considering these matters could look at that situation, because people are really caught in a trap.

The hon. Gentleman is not the only person who worries about it, and I will receive his intervention as a submission to the child poverty taskforce.

The child poverty taskforce is looking at all the levers we can pull—across income, costs, debt and local support—to prevent poverty, including social security reform. Our universal credit review is considering ways that the system can improve in order to stabilise family finances and provide roots into good work.

On the two-child limit specifically, the consequences of the Conservative choices made over the past decade and a half are clear for all to see. We have rightly said many times that we will not commit to any policy without knowing how we will pay for it. Taxpayers in this country—who include many parents, grandparents and those who care deeply about the fortunes of the next generation—have the right to know that they have a Government who will help grow our country and our economy. Poverty creates stony ground for that growth. It robs people of the dignity of being able to look after themselves and the choices about how to live their own lives. It robs children of what should be a worry-free time and makes them less able to take risks and try new things as they grow up.

This makes bad beginnings for a country that needs its next generation to be innovators, to be inventors and to build our future. I say this as one of three in a family with hard-working parents where money was tight. We knew every day in those years when I was growing up that the Tory Government at the helm did not give a stuff about people like us—we knew that every single day. Families in this country who are struggling should know that this Labour Government think about them every day. We have taken action to improve life for our kids, and we will keep fighting for that every single day.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Children are 20% of our population in the United Kingdom but 100% of our future, and it is shocking that almost a third of those children are growing up in poverty. That is why the Liberal Democrats believe the two-child limit should be lifted, as well as the benefit cap.

There are 4.5 million children living in poverty in the United Kingdom. That is almost a million and a half more than the population of Wales, which is shocking in the 21st century. Some 44% of children live in a family where someone has a disability, which relates back to the conversations we have had about universal credit and PIP in recent weeks. The figure I have is slightly different from that of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh): 72% of children living in poverty live in a family where an individual is in work—people are in work, and yet their children are in poverty.

I reflect on a visit I made to a primary school in Paignton in the winter, where the headteacher said, “We have children who are coming into school cold, hungry and tired.” The impact of this on children is shocking. I represent the most deprived constituency that has a Liberal Democrat MP. The fact of the matter is that children do not choose to be born into large families, so having a benefits system that punishes those children is perverse in the extreme. This has been exacerbated by the cost of living crisis. Whether it is skyrocketing rents or utility bills, those are all significant challenges that have an impact on these youngsters.

The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said that people have choices. What about a couple who choose to have three or four children, and everything is going well, but suddenly one of them is in an accident or contracts a significant disease that debilitates them, and their partner has to give up work to look after them and the rest of the family? That is not a choice; it is a sad circumstance for that family. We as a society need to make sure that the safety net is there to support them.

The Liberal Democrats have made a manifesto commitment to lift the two-child limit and the benefit cap, and it is not just us who believe this is the right way forward. The big four children’s charities believe this is the best, most cost-effective way to tackle child poverty. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation—a much loved organisation of mine—also believes this is the best way to tackle child poverty.

Childhood is a very short period of our lives. It is sad that the child poverty strategy has been delayed, but I hope it will emerge in the autumn. When I was the leader of Torbay council, we turned round children’s services from failing to good within two years. Part of that was ensuring that we used the whole of our orchestra of Torbay to support children: the Government’s biggest instrument is lifting the two-child limit and the benefit cap, because we desperately need to lift these children out of poverty.

Tackling the causes of child poverty is the reason I came into this place. As a teacher and then cabinet member for education, I know only too well about the child poverty that has grown for over a decade—I could see it happening before my eyes. In Wales, much has already been put in place to mitigate the impact, including in my own work: long-established free breakfast clubs, work to lower the cost of the school day and universal free school meals in every primary school.

There is also the incredible work that my local schools do, with family support spaces, banks of winter coats and food banks—yes, food banks—in schools, to make sure that children go home to a proper meal. The necessity of these in 21st-century Britain is a stain on our country, so when I hear Conservative Members talk about benefits culture, blaming people for their financial struggles and telling them to live within their means, I am frankly staggered, because it is their inaction and shoulder-shrugging that has led us to where we are today.

Does the hon. Lady recognise that there were 800,000 fewer people—including 300,000 children—in absolute poverty and 4 million more people in work in the UK when the Conservatives left power in 2024 than there were in 2010? Labour Governments take us in the opposite direction: they put people in the dole queue and make the whole country poorer. That is why the Conservative party can be proud of its role in poverty reduction, including for children.

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, but to be frank, I do not recognise any of it. The Tories sat on their hands and allowed low-paid work to grow, access to work to dwindle, welfare dependency to deepen and daily living costs to soar.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I have just given way, so I will make some progress.

I came to this place because I did not want to mitigate the impact of child poverty any more—I wanted to do something about it. That is exactly what this Labour Government are doing, by boosting the minimum wage, taking others on the pay scale up with it; by investing in getting people trapped outside the labour market into work—the surest route out of poverty in the long term for them and the generations that follow; by negotiating trade deals to bring food costs down; by expanding the warm home discount, so that almost 1 million more families can afford to pay their bills, and investing in our own clean energy to bring those bills down for good; by increasing the standard rate of universal credit above inflation for the first time ever; and by establishing a fair payment rate for those who find themselves immediately in arrears with universal credit, which is a recognised driver for food bank use—an early action towards our manifesto promise to end mass food bank dependence for good. That is what action looks like—not indifference, not inertia, and not blaming those who are in need of support.

I know only too well that the drivers of child poverty are complex and multifaceted, but we must not shy away from that complexity. That is why I am proud that one of this Government’s first actions was to begin work on a child poverty strategy where, importantly, everything is on the table to drive down poverty and drive up opportunity.

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

I am just about to finish, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

I look forward to the findings of the child poverty taskforce in the autumn. More than that, I look forward to getting to work to make child poverty a thing of the past, so that we can continue to act, rather than to blame as the motion does today. We must put child poverty into the dustbin of history, where it belongs.

Order. We have two Opposition day debates that are both heavily subscribed, so we will start with a speaking limit of four minutes.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, which at its heart is about fairness and what works, rather than what sounds good. I believe that supporting families and helping parents requires a balanced system that provides support for those who need it, but that also ensures a sense of fairness to the taxpayer and the many working families who do not see their incomes rise automatically when they have more children. The previous benefit structure, which adjusted automatically for family size, was unfair on taxpayers, who pay for the extra benefits being received. Indeed, under the previous Labour Government, 1.4 million people spent years trapped in out-of-work benefits, with 50,000 households allowed to claim benefits worth over £500 a week, or over £26,000 a year, which was higher than the average wage at that time.

Taxpaying families who are not in receipt of benefits often have to make tough decisions when choosing how many children to have, and many will have made the decision not to have more simply because they could not afford it. As others have pointed out, for demographic reasons we may wish that that was not the case, but it is, and it simply is not fair to ask families who are making those difficult decisions to pay for the benefits of others who are not making those choices.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is about fairness; it is about hard-working families who are trying to take care of their two children, while watching someone who is on benefits having multiple children. It is about fairness, equity and welfare state dependency.

I agree. I find it hard to believe that Labour Members would allow and support a system where someone could have five, six, seven, eight, or nine children—all being paid for by somebody else—and think that that is fair.

I spoke earlier about F. E. Smith, who spoke about all having prizes who had

“stout hearts and sharp swords”.

The stout hearts drive us to do the best for those in the greatest need, but our sharp swords should make us brave enough to recognise that there are those who are absorbing welfare expenditure that should be spent on those needy people. That is what the Government ought to do, but I heard none of that from the Minister.

It is the inability to have difficult conversations and make difficult points that puts Labour Members on the wrong side of these issues and on the wrong side of British taxpayers, who understand the complexity of these things.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Not right now.

I recognise, of course, that some people are not able to make the same choice about the number of children in their family—including, for example, children who are cared for under kinship arrangements, or adopted; there are many exceptions to the policy to make it fair. The welfare system is already growing unsustainably, with spending on health and disability benefits alone set to hit £100 billion by the end of the decade, yet Labour, Reform and the Liberal Democrats all back higher welfare spending, including scrapping the two-child limit, which will keep taxes high. The Resolution Foundation estimates that scrapping the two-child benefit limit will cost £3.5 billion a year by 2029-30. Is this really an appropriate time to put more pressure on the public finances?

The focus of the motion today is the two-child benefit limit, yet we heard not a single word from the Minister about it. That shows just how listless and drifting the Government are, when those on the Front Bench cannot tell the truth to this House or to those on the Back Benches. The truth is that the Labour party is riven in two, and those on the Front Bench no longer have any power of propulsion.

As others have pointed out, the Government put forward welfare reforms that were supposed to save money but ended up costing money, and this is yet another attempt to placate their Back Benchers in a way that we cannot afford. We must be clear about our record: we brought down absolute child poverty when we were in government. Labour Members are happy to quote figures on relative poverty and take them at face value, but when we quote figures on absolute poverty from the same datasets, they do not want to hear it. I am clear that I care more about absolute poverty, and how much someone actually has to spend on things that they need, than I do about relative poverty.

Does the hon. Gentleman also care about deep poverty? That increased to a point where four in 10 children who were in poverty under the Conservatives were in deep poverty. Will he apologise for that?

I think we need to look at the absolute poverty figures and at what difference we can make to them—and what makes a long-term difference to the number of people in poverty of any kind is employment. We reversed the decline in employment, but we are now seeing it get higher every day under this Government’s policies. That is what is bringing even more people into poverty—their record on the economy and on employment.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I want to finish my speech.

Poverty is, of course, a matter for Government. It is about policies and about incomes, but there is another important side to child poverty in this country that people are too uncomfortable to talk about: child maintenance and the absence of payments made in single-parent families. Research by the single-parent advocacy organisation Gingerbread found that 43% of children in single-parent families in the UK are living in poverty, compared with 26% in couple families. We know that poverty has many causes and there is no single solution, but there is clear evidence that when child maintenance is paid in full, it has a significant impact in lifting children out of poverty. Research shows that where it is received, child maintenance cuts the child poverty rate by 25%.

Gingerbread’s “Fix the CMS” report found that 57% of parents who care for a child and had a child maintenance arrangement in place reported that they did not receive the full amount. The amounts involved are significant. At the end of September 2024, total cumulative arrears of payments that were formally expected stood at £682.1 million, and that figure is due to reach £1 billion by the end of the decade. That is just a fraction of the story, because those figures are based only on the sometimes quite pitiful amounts that non-custodial parents have to pay, either because they earn little or because they hide what they earn. Those figures also do not include parents who are not pursued for money by the custodial parent.

Absent parents are denying children much higher amounts of money than the official figures suggest, and there is a deep unfairness to that. If a custodial parent simply chose not to provide any more resources to the child they care for, they would face criminal sanction for neglect. A non-custodial parent who does not give money for the upkeep of their child faces no similar ramifications. I have no idea why we do not place an expectation on a non-custodial parent to make the same efforts to find work and earn money as we do with out-of-work people on benefits, as they are also creating a burden on the taxpayer.

As the Minister may know, there is legislation that allows steps to be taken to place non-paying parents in home detention. I urge her and the Government to look closely at that. If people cannot be bothered to go out, work and pay for their children when they do not live with them, they should not be allowed out on a Saturday night to drink beers with their mates. That would help to drive down the huge amount of money that is owed to children by parents who are simply not paying for them—

Order.

It is a pleasure to speak in support of the policies outlined by the Minister. I wish to discuss the crisis in the system, the situation in my constituency, and some of the important initiatives under way to get people back into work.

It is worth reviewing the scale of the crisis that the current Government inherited just a year ago. After 14 years of the previous Government, 4.5 million children were living in poverty, 2.8 million people were on long-term sickness and disability benefits, and the cost of those benefits was up by £20 billion since the pandemic.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not, I am afraid. I need to make some progress.

In addition, one in eight young people were out of work due to long-term sickness and were on sickness and disability benefits. In short, the system that the Government inherited this time last year was in crisis and, moreover, trapped people in poverty.

We are lucky to have a growing local economy in my constituency. We have a town that attracts many new businesses, and we grow our own businesses. However, that wealth is not spread evenly. Despite the impressive array of new buildings in the town centre, there is a stark contrast between the wealth in those businesses and some of the wonderful science parks on the edge of the town, and the poverty in which some of our residents live. I want to see that issue addressed. The Government are taking important steps forward in tackling that issue. I certainly saw the problems when I was a councillor in Reading. They can include families struggling to get by in an area where the cost of living is particularly high and the cost of housing is high; that is a crucial part of the issue.

Creating more good jobs is very important, and that is not just my opinion. Those jobs need to be spread across the country, and I believe the Government are making real progress on that, and on growing the economy. Indeed, I will correct a point that was made earlier: the UK economy has grown more in the first quarter of this year than any other comparable G7 economy, and that is in a difficult economic context around the world. As well as a need for economic growth, there is a need to improve access to good jobs. That is one of the points I want to cover.

Does my hon. Friend agree that disabled people have been written off by the Conservatives for too long? They have not been given opportunities to access work and good jobs, and they have been blamed by the Conservatives, for the sake of cheap headlines. Does he also agree that the Labour Government’s proposed transformation of jobcentres, which is already under way and will involve retraining dedicated work coaches, will help people to access the good jobs that he talks about?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes an excellent point.

Will the hon. Gentleman take an intervention from a Member on the Opposition Benches?

I will make a little more progress.

I have discussed some of the challenges in my constituency, which are very pertinent to the wider debate. Even in areas of the UK where economic growth is at quite a reasonable level, we face real challenges accessing some of that wealth. The Minister outlined the 17 initiatives aimed at encouraging people to return to work, building their confidence and growing their ability to access work. That is so important. I would like to see more of that, and I hope that the Minister will say more about that later.

Many of my constituents who are not able to benefit from the great opportunities in our town are struggling with a series of challenges in their lives. That is not through their own lack of initiative, but often because of pressures on childcare and many other issues.

I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes about child poverty. In Northern Ireland, child poverty has grown by between 35% and 40% in total, so many people in Northern Ireland have experienced child poverty in the last five years who would not have experienced it for a long time before that. The Government have indicated that having a strategy may work. Does he feel, as I do, that we need a strategy not just for Westminster, but for the whole United Kingdom, so that we can collectively address this issue?

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. This must be a strategy for the whole United Kingdom. I am obviously reflecting on the issues in my community, where we are lucky to have relatively high economic growth, but that growth is not spread or shared evenly. I want more detail from the Minister about the 17 very exciting pilots, which have focused on offering help and support.

I appreciate that time is pressing, but let me briefly focus on some of the very important first steps that the Government have taken in this area. Some of these policies are not solely within the remit of the Department for Work and Pensions, but are cross-Government. It is important to see the context. We have had the biggest investment in employment support for many years, with £3.5 billion being invested in that important field. There has also been an increase in the minimum wage to £12.21 per hour, and the initiative to build more homes during this Parliament. That is vital. As I said, one of the biggest challenges for families in my area is the very high cost of housing, so it is very important that we build homes to buy and to rent across the country, and that families can access those. Greater supply will obviously drive down the cost.

It is also important that families are supported with childcare. That is a very important aspect of helping parents return to work, particularly when they have young children. I was delighted to hear the Best Start announcement, and there will be a Best Start project in Reading. Other initiatives have provided similar support; the free breakfast clubs, for example, are also very important. I want a quicker roll-out of those programmes.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am afraid that I really am pressed for time.

We need to see the wider context of the very difficult inheritance the Government had. Hard work is under way, but it will obviously take time to shift some of these very persistent problems. The focus on helping people to return to work is so important, and I hope that the Minister will say more about these important trailblazers; they seem extremely well-designed. Thank you for my time today, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The UK’s benefits system is designed to act as a financial safety net. It exists so that people in hardship through no fault of their own can be supported. Supporting families and helping parents into work requires a balanced and fair system. It must provide meaningful support for those who need it most, while maintaining a sense of fairness for taxpayers. That is why the Conservatives introduced the two-child limit and believe it should be retained—so that people on benefits face the same choices as those in work. The welfare system is growing unsustainably, with spending on health and disability benefits alone set to hit £100 billion by the end of the decade.

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the words of Richard Hughes of the OBR, who said in a report last week:

“The UK cannot afford the array of promises that it has made to the public”?

He also said that debt is on a trajectory that the UK “can’t sustain”.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. It is essential that we put Britain’s finances on a sustainable path. All benefits are funded by taxpayers or borrowing, so every time the cost of benefits rises, so does the burden on taxpayers, or the debt we place on future generations.

My hon. Friend is right about the cost of benefits, but he is also right to suggest that they need to be directed to those in the greatest need—the most deserving. That is what we all want across this House. Sadly, because of family breakdown and the fragmentation of communities, the state has stepped in to do what was once done, in my early life, by families, individuals and communities. It is really important that this welfare reform is seen in that broader context, and that we direct the money to those with the greatest need.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. I know that he, like all Conservatives, believes in personal responsibility, living within our means and fairness to the taxpayer.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not take any more interventions.

Many thousands of couples think every year about whether to have children. They make that choice based on several factors, but one of the most important is whether they can afford to bring up that child as they would like to. Under the previous system, pre-2017, there was a fundamental element of unfairness in the system. A family in receipt of benefits saw those increase automatically every time they had another child. That is not true for a family not in receipt of benefits. Why is it that someone on benefits should not have to make the same choices and sacrifices as someone in work? Why should a taxpayer who is unable to afford to have more children subsidise the third, fourth or fifth child of someone not in work?

The welfare bill in this country is increasing at an unsustainable rate. Unemployment is rising, thanks to the action of the Government, and more people than ever are receiving disability benefits, but this Government seem completely powerless to do anything to reverse that trend. The Prime Minister says that his welfare reforms strike the “right balance”, but the truth is that he was forced into a humiliating U-turn by his own Back Benchers and has had to totally gut his plans. Scrapping the Government’s PIP reforms means that the welfare Bill will make no savings at all—indeed, the total package will end up costing the taxpayer about an extra £100 million a year. What a fiasco!

The Government set out to save £4.5 billion, and have ended up spending more taxpayers’ money to buy off Labour rebels. No thought was given to the burden on the taxpayer, or to the extra debt that the Government would incur and the interest that will have to be paid on it by our children. The fact that so many Labour Members want to remove the two-child benefit cap is testament to the irresponsibility with which they treat the public finances. Their solution is always to spend more money—preferably belonging to someone else.

Now, we have the spectacle of the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), saying that he also supports scrapping the two-child cap, despite having been an outspoken supporter of it when it was introduced. Reform supporters in my constituency are rather puzzled by his decision. It suggests that the hon. Member is not guided by any political principle, but is chasing votes in the red wall, where he hopes to win seats from the Labour party. In my view, that confirms that he is wholly unserious about governing this country. There is only one party in this House that is serious about sound money, and that is the Conservative party. We are the only party that is serious about stopping the creeping reliance on welfare, and that cares about taxpayers keeping more of the money they earn.

Today, we have seen lots of colleagues taking interventions from each other. When I stand up to speak, particularly about poverty, I take interventions from another source—my mum. She will be sitting at home, watching the TV, and she will text me, because she knows that I am going to talk about my upbringing—about growing up in poverty, caring for her and my father, who were disabled and were forced out of work because the NHS and the social security system were nowhere to be seen when my mum and dad needed them. She is going to text me, as she always does, to say, “I’m sorry. I did my best.” She does not always realise that poverty is systemic—that it is about society and the structures we build. She internalises the shame and the guilt, and feels like she did not do enough.

Given what has been said today, I also fear that my mum will ask me a further question: “Why are some of those MPs suggesting, or saying, that I am a scrounger, as a person dependent on the welfare system?” I do not think that Members of Parliament intend to create that impression, but they should know that what they say perpetuates the shame and stigma of poverty, which is impossible to eradicate in one lifetime, and is passed on from one generation to the next. That is why I stood for Parliament. I am in this place to try to tackle child poverty, so that the people of Bournemouth East—the constituency I represent—do not have the same kind of childhood I had, living without very much, and relying on the love of a mum and dad who will sacrifice everything to get you to where they think you need to be, when they should be able to depend on a wider social security system. I ask Members speaking in today’s debate to reflect on the language they use, because the outside world is watching.

Does my hon. Friend agree that his mum and dad did a brilliant job bringing him up; that mums and dads in all sorts of circumstances do their level best, bringing up their kids; that they are proud—as my hon. Friend’s parents no doubt are of him—of the job they have done, and the contribution that their children make; and that a person’s circumstances of birth do not define who they are going to become?

I always agree with my hon. Friend, especially when she says that I should agree with my mum. I thank her for her intervention, and I agree that nobody’s background should shape their future. We are in this place to create a better social security system, a better NHS and better public services, so that children today in all our constituencies can access the support that they need, in the form that they need, enabling them to truly thrive.

It deeply saddens me that in my constituency of Bournemouth East, children are growing up in poverty. Some 27% of children in my constituency are growing up in relative poverty; in the ward of Boscombe West, that figure is 43%, and in the ward of Springbourne, it is 36%. That is unacceptable in 2025 in modern Britain, and we should not put up with it. Looking beyond my constituency, a near-record 2.8 million people are out of work due to long-term sickness—thrown on the scrapheap. Some 300,000 people fall out of work every year because of their health, and part of the reason for that is the underfunding of our public services; that leaves people on waiting lists, and waiting lists kill.

We know that 4.5 million children are in relative poverty after housing costs, a figure that has risen by 900,000 since 2010. We also know that the Tories presided over the worst Parliament ever recorded for economic inactivity; it rose by over 800,000 to 9.4 million people. We hear from Opposition Members about the connection between work and welfare, but when they presided over such economic inactivity, such poor productivity and such sluggish growth, is it any wonder—

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will not be taking an intervention.

Is it any wonder that, as a consequence, we have people who are in significant difficulty, particularly when the social security and public services that they rely on have been chopped back?

As such, I welcome the launch of the child poverty taskforce as an early priority of this Government. I was pleased to meet the Minister just last week to talk about my priorities, which include trying to make sure that play is not squeezed out of childhood and that we have a social security system to meet the needs of children, particularly in the disadvantaged areas of my constituency.

I thank my hon. Friend and colleague from Dorset for giving way. He has talked about the issues outside his constituency of Bournemouth East, and he does not have to look far to see some of the inequalities that are in play—only to West Dorset. He will know from our beautiful part of the countryside that delivering services, including access to affordable healthcare, is even more difficult in rural Britain due to the sparsity of the population. That makes it even more important to support those most vulnerable members of our community.

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He invites me to champion his work. I do not think I will do that, but I will acknowledge his hard work and commitment, and I am pleased that he is a colleague.

The child poverty taskforce is going to be critical. The report that it will release, based on feedback from all Members of this House and all our civil society organisations, will be so important, so I am glad that we are taking the time to get this right. It will be a once-in-a-generation opportunity truly to tackle the root causes of child poverty. I am also pleased that, although we have launched that taskforce, this Government are cracking on with the hard work. Just this week, we have seen the announcement of the better futures fund—£500 million from this Government, to be matched by £500 million from local government and the private sector. In total, that is a £1 billion fund that will make a huge difference.

Similarly, I am pleased that we are providing free school meals for all children in families that are on universal credit—that will have a significant impact for my constituents. I am also pleased about the revamped Sure Start, which I think we should talk about more. A revamped Sure Start in all of our local authority areas, with the money that is being given to it, will be able to spot some of the hardships—the physical and mental health issues—that arise from poverty, and to tackle its root causes as well as its symptoms. It will give children a chance to grow, play, learn from each other and develop with peer support, and it will enable their parents, who have been starved of parenting support under the Conservatives, to learn from each other and get what they need. We have a long way to go in order to reverse the decline caused by the Conservatives and lift as many kids as possible out of poverty, but together across this House, I believe that we all have the solutions. I hope we can take this debate forward in the right way and lift those kids out of poverty.

We must have a fair welfare system—one that provides vital support to those who need it but does not create a barrier to finding work. We need a financially sustainable system that delivers fairness for the taxpayer and does not entrench dependency. The Government’s Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill—which I think has now been shortened to the Universal Credit Bill—barely saves any money. In fact, I think we heard from the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), that it will cost more money, and it will make no impact on helping people back to work. That highlights the Government’s complete failure to reform our welfare system.

The welfare bill continues to rise, and economic growth is being strangled as a result. With thousands signing on to incapacity benefit every day, it is clear that we must get serious and take control of welfare spending. We cannot become a welfare state with an economy attached. I will always stand up for those in Mid Bedfordshire who need vital support. The two-child limit is an important safeguard in our welfare system, striking a balance between supporting families and helping parents into work, and ensuring fairness for working families who do not see their incomes grow as their families grow. Working families across the country are having to make difficult decisions about the size of their family.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will happily give way—the hon. Lady has been trying for some time.

Does the hon. Member accept that even with his emphasis on parental financial responsibility, the two-child benefit cap punishes the entirely innocent party—the children, who had no choice in their existence? Is that not deeply unjust?

I am sympathetic to the point, but I will get on to how unjust and unfair it is to expect other families to pay for those situations, and the fiscal stability and security we need as a country.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is actually about growth in the economy, low tax, the welfare state being there as a safety net—not as a path to dependency, in which our economy is stifled and lacks any growth—and children whose parents work hard being given the same privileges and fairness as anyone on welfare benefits?

I absolutely agree. It is important that we get people into work so that they can look after their families and make the right decisions for them.

Shifting the financial responsibility of children on to the state risks not only entrenching inequality, but opening the floodgates to unsustainable dependency, encouraging parents to have children beyond their means under the assumption that the state will bear the cost. It is neither equitable nor responsible for the state to incentivise larger families through an open-ended benefits system. That is especially true as the cost of our welfare bill and its burden on the taxpayer continues to rise. The fiscal reality must not be ignored.

Projections from the Child Poverty Action Group and the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimate that removing the cap would create an additional £1 billion annual cost to the public finances. As we grapple with considerable economic pressures, such a policy shift is simply not affordable. Removing the cap would force the Government to raise taxes further, borrow even more money—when borrowing is already out of control—or divert public funding away from other stretched public services. The Government have lost control of the public finances, and working families cannot afford to take another hit.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned raising taxes, but does he accept that there are many ways to do that? One way is to look at large corporations and people who have far more money than they will ever use.

I certainly accept that there are many ways to raise taxes, but my constituents and businesses in my constituency are paying far too much tax as it is. We cannot continue to squeeze corporations, businesses and hard-working people further to achieve the hon. Gentleman’s aims.

The Government have lost control of public finances. Working families cannot afford to take another hit. I recognise the sensitivity of the debate. It is crucial that we support those in genuine need, and we must work towards ending child poverty. The state, however, simply cannot afford to subsidise unlimited family expansion on the backs of working people.

Order. The speaking limit has now been reduced to three minutes.

I have visited St Anselm’s food bank in Southall on many occasions and spoken to its brilliant volunteers, but the people who find it hard to speak to me are those collecting the food. Being poor and unable to feed their family is not something they want to shout about. I can see the distress written on their faces. Those mums and dads have not decided to live in poverty. Many of them have jobs, but they just cannot make ends meet. They are the casualties of 14 years of Conservative Government—of public services that were cut to the bone, leaving people without a vital safety net when things go wrong; of a jobs market that left workers on bargain-basement terms and conditions and low-wage jobs with no protections; and, of a welfare system with a basic rate that just was not enough to live on, instead pushing people into relying on sickness benefits.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, exactly because of those problems, we should all welcome the uplift to the basic rate of UC, which will lift the income of 6.5 million families?

I absolutely welcome that point. The Conservatives put 1 million more children into poverty, with 800,000 children now relying on food banks such as St Anselm’s to eat. In the motion today, the Conservatives have the bare-faced cheek to blame those families, as if parents choose to let their kids go hungry. The only people to blame for this are Liz Truss’s Conservative party, who gambled with the country’s finances, betting it all on pie-in-the-sky promises they knew they could not pay for, bringing the economy crashing down overnight. Families in Ealing and Southall are still suffering the consequences; 40,000 of them are having to go to the food bank this year.

Under this Labour Government, we want to make food banks the exception and not the norm. That is why Labour has opened new breakfast clubs, such as the one in Wolf Fields in Southall; expanded nurseries, such as in Allenby primary; extended free school meals for all those on universal credit; and reduced energy bills by £150 for more than half a million Londoners.

We know, however, that we need to change the whole busted system that puts people into poverty in the first place. That is why Labour is ending the low-paid, bargain-basement jobs of the Tory era. Our Employment Rights Bill will end zero-hours contracts, with families no longer wondering from week to week if they can get enough hours to afford food. We are stopping fire and rehire, extending sick pay to low-income workers, and we have raised the minimum wage for 3 million working families. Our next step is to address the injustices faced by those working in the gig economy.

I agree with my hon. Friend, and we are making huge progress on reducing those waiting lists. We are also fixing the broken welfare system that the Conservatives left behind. We are increasing the basic rate of universal credit to help those families who rely on it, so that it starts to become enough to live on, and they do not have to use food banks. We have changed the rules, so that people are no longer better off on sickness benefit. That is how the Conservatives left the welfare system, but we are the Labour party, and we believe in good jobs as the best route out of poverty. We have put more than £1 billion into helping people find those good jobs.

What do the Conservatives have to say for themselves? There is no apology to the almost 1 million children that they put into poverty and left reliant on food banks. There is no apology to the almost 3 million people on long-term sick left living on benefits when many of them wanted to work. There is no apology to the tens of thousands of families struggling to get by on bargain-basement jobs. They created the problem, and as their motion shows today, they have absolutely no plan to fix it. All they can do is blame the very families their policies have forced into poverty. It is clear that only this Labour Government are serious about getting Britain working, ensuring that those who cannot work have a decent living income, finally ending reliance on food banks, such as St Anselm’s in Southall, for good.

Two weeks ago, the House came together to watch the Labour party tear itself apart over to what extent it would remove welfare support from some of the most vulnerable in society, including, but not limited to, those with Parkinson’s and dementia.

It is not all bad news, though. Jeff got married in the same week, so congratulations to Jeff. He got married in Venice. By most accounts, it was a lovely and private affair. Although it cost him approximately $50 million, he probably would not have noticed, because he is worth $328 billion. Like most very wealthy people, his wealth has almost doubled in the past two years. For context, it would take an MP earning only their salary, which is almost three times the average UK salary, 2.5 million years to accrue that kind of wealth. Clearly the Government will not be taxing Jeff, whose wealth lies offshore, although he does own a modest UK-based delivery business with an annual turnover of £30 billion. It paid less than 3% in cumulative tax on that figure last year.

Labour did promise that those with the broadest shoulders should carry the heaviest burden. I am sure that enough wealth exists within our own borders to keep our most vulnerable citizens supported. Will the Government therefore commit themselves to both keeping and increasing digital service tax, so that big tech pays its fair share?

I am grateful to the Opposition for initiating a debate that enables us to discuss one of the most critical issues facing our nation: child poverty. Every child growing up in poverty represents a future diminished, opportunity denied and potential unfulfilled. Every child deserves the best start in life, so that they can learn, achieve and go on to live the best life that they deserve. That is why tackling child poverty is now firmly back at the top of the Government’s agenda.

For 14 years, the previous Government presided over a shameful legacy that led directly to this crisis. As others have said, they left us with 4.5 million children in relative poverty, including 3,000 in my constituency. Since 2010, child poverty increased by a staggering 900,000 children, but instead of trying to tackle the problem, the Conservatives decided in 2015 to abolish the target of eradicating child poverty. Their motion and, indeed, their rhetoric allude to the idea that Governments should “make work pay,” but when they were in government they oversaw the first Parliament on record with living standards lower at its end than at its start.

Some within the Conservative ranks have today shown a shocking disregard for this issue. They have talked of personal responsibility, but their version of personal responsibility appears to be lecturing others on it rather than taking any themselves. If they were taking personal responsibility on child poverty, they would come to the House and explain why it rose by 90,000 children. Was it a matter of policy design, was it a matter of policy failure, or was it, indeed, the fault of the children themselves?

Does my hon. Friend agree that people in disadvantaged and poorer areas typically live in overcrowded, poor-quality rented accommodation, and that this Labour Government’s efforts to improve the quality of rented accommodation should be commended as a way of tackling child poverty?

Absolutely. As one who has fought outside the House for significant investment in affordable housing, particularly social housing, I greatly welcome the Government’s massive investment in the affordable housing programme.

It falls to this Government to fix the mess that the Conservatives left behind. We are committed to driving down poverty and driving up opportunity in every part of our country, delivering the change that the country so desperately needs. We have already made a considerable downpayment on the comprehensive strategy on child poverty that is due later this year, providing free school meals for all children in households receiving universal credit, for which so many of my Labour colleagues campaigned for many months and years; delivering free breakfast clubs in schools; reforming universal credit deductions with a new fair repayment rate, which the Minister mentioned earlier and which puts hundreds of pounds back into the pockets of 700,000 of the poorest families; and increasing the standard allowance of universal credit.

Looking ahead, our plan to get Britain working involves the biggest investment in employment support in a generation, including an additional £1 billion a year by the end of the Parliament for work, health and skills support through a “Pathways to Work” offer.

The hon. Gentleman has rightly highlighted the terrible record of the previous Government and the number of children who went into poverty during that period, which includes an extra 250,000 who went into poverty as a result of the introduction of the two-child benefit cap. He has listed some actions that this Government are planning to take. Will he add to that list his support for scrapping the cap, and will he join figures in his own party, such as Lord Kinnock and Mark Drakeford, in supporting the introduction of a wealth tax for the super-rich, so that we can fund the tackling of inequality and support the most vulnerable?

I will not get ahead of our Chancellor when it comes to the announcements about taxation that will be made later in the year, but I am confident that those on the Front Bench know that they have our full support in delivering the final recommendations of the child poverty taskforce, also later in the year.

This Government will never allow young people to be written off, as the Tories did for years. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am pleased that the Conservatives initiated the debate, which has given us all a chance to discuss child poverty and their record on welfare, both of which are shocking. I lament the fact that they have failed to recognise the scale of their failure today, but I am pleased that this Government are getting on with the job of returning people to work, ensuring that social security is there for those who need it, and tackling the moral stain on our country that is child poverty.

I find it deeply shameful that we must see our constituents suffer under the cruelty of the two-child benefit cap. It is a policy that punishes children for the circumstances of their birth, and it has no place in a civilised society. Outside the walls of the Treasury building, in Birmingham Perry Barr I receive testimonies from the families who must live with the reality of the two-child benefit cap, and 53% of children in my constituency live in poverty, which is more than 3,000 impacted by this cap.

These are not just statistics; they are lives. In Birmingham Perry Barr, I constantly receive heartbreaking testimonies from families living with the consequences of this callous measure. Let me tell the House what that means in real life. It means a mother skipping meals so that her children can eat. It means children sharing a bed in a cold, damp flat because the heating bill must come second to food. It means school uniforms being bought two sizes too big because they need to last for years. At a time when food prices are soaring, with energy bills spiralling out of control, rent being unaffordable and council tax rising, this Government have actively chosen to make life harder for struggling families. No child’s future, no child’s health and no child’s dignity should depend on how many siblings they have, yet under this Labour Administration that is exactly the situation we have created.

This is not just an economic failure; it is a moral one. Working families—and more than 50% are working while relying on some benefits—and those doing everything asked of them are being abandoned in their hour of need, and it is happening under Labour’s watch. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has stated outright that scrapping the cap would bring nearly half a million children out of poverty. Ending this policy would not just relieve families, but ease the pressure on food banks, schools and charities—the organisations that have been forced to pick up the slack where the Government have abdicated responsibility.

Despite all this evidence and all the human suffering, this Labour Government refuse to act. Time and again, they have shown where their priorities lie: protecting billionaires and large corporations from paying their fair share, while children go to bed cold and hungry. The Government say that they are committed to solving the issue, but they continue to fail the British public at every turn. At current projections, they are on track to be the only Labour Administration in living memory to oversee an increase in child poverty rates. It would be a shameful legacy to leave behind and the deepest betrayal of our future generations, so I urge the Government and Ministers to change their stance, stand on the side of British families and end the two-child limit. We face a child poverty emergency, and it is up to us to respond with the urgency it demands.

In the Black Country we work hard, we are proud and we do not lack for personal responsibility, but forces bigger than any individual—deindustrialisation and the cruel 14 years of austerity—mean that good folk earn less, are sicker, and have fewer chances and fewer choices than people elsewhere. As I stand here every day in this place, the kids living behind the doors that I knocked on during the general election and every week since live in my heart, because one in two of them—one in two—in my ends grow up in poverty. That means every second family, every second door, every second kid, and in the 12th most deprived borough in the country, that is our share of the 4.5 million kids growing up in poverty in this national emergency.

I want to thank the churches, mosques, gurdwaras and community organisations in my ends that are serving dignity, love and solidarity alongside food parcels, warm clothes and hot food. But I will also say this: when the state walked away from us, took money from our councils, closed our Sure Starts, cut the social security that we have paid for, and watched as good jobs in heavy industry fled and nothing replaced them, we picked ourselves up, we helped one another and we somehow kept the wolf from the door.

Community self-defence is now exhausted, but I say to those children that at long last the cavalry are coming. In this rich country, no one will go without the basics, and every child will matter again. Just look at the start we have made—ending no-fault evictions, building council homes and banning zero-hours contracts. This autumn, people will see the scale of our ambition in the child poverty strategy. The down payments we have already made include free school meals for every family on universal credit, and free breakfast clubs, including at St John Bosco primary school in West Bromwich in my constituency. There will be family hubs in every single town, and we are fixing local government finance so that it once again takes account of deprivation and of places such as mine.

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech about the resilience of her community and the action that this Labour Government are taking. Her constituents, like mine, are being lectured on personal responsibility. Does she share my astonishment that, despite the opportunity to take some responsibility themselves for a mini-Budget that crashed our economy, and for 3 million people out of work and a welfare system out of control, we are hearing no apology or personal responsibility from the Conservative party?

My hon. Friend will be unsurprised to hear that I am awaiting that apology, both for that and for the 900,000 more children in poverty under the previous Government.

As I was saying, that is a down payment on the child poverty strategy to come. I know that I do not need to urge ambition on my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. They carry in their hearts every day the children who did not eat last night. They know that whether you have dinner this evening should not depend on how many siblings you have.

There is no need to listen to those on the Opposition Benches, who pushed up child poverty by 900,000. Come and walk around Friar Park or Princes End, meet those kids and tell them why someone’s choices, far away here in London, mean they have no tea tonight. It is time they apologised to the children of this country. And there is no point listening to the absent bandwagon johnnies of Reform. If they cared about people on low wages, they would not have voted against increasing statutory sick pay, banning zero-hours contracts or increasing the national minimum wage. As always, it is Labour that stands for working-class families.

Poverty robs children of their future: it limits their life chances; impacts their long-term health; and reduces their ability to participate in the bits of childhood that widen their experience, build resilience and teach new skills.

We may live in a beautiful part of the world, but the children in South Devon who go to school hungry, who live in overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation, and whose parents are working two or three low-paid jobs just to make ends meet—they are the children whose lives have already been limited by the situation they are growing up in. Emma Hopkins, from the Mother’s Manifesto group in Totnes, told me that they had heard from mothers who were regularly skipping meals so that they could feed their children, living on the brink and racked with anxiety. The mental health impact of that is enormous. One mum of two, filling up on tea, was worried that her eldest child just does not believe her any more when she says she has already eaten.

That is not something we should hear in 2025. It sounds like something from a Dickens novel, but over 5,300 children in South Devon were living poverty in 2023, facing daily challenges that no child should have to endure. If the Government lifted the two-child limit today, families across my constituency and everywhere else would feel the difference immediately. Surely, if we want to reduce the welfare bill in the long term, we must lift children out of poverty now to give them the best chance to grow up healthy, with the best opportunities to go on to have meaningful work.

Some 4.5 million children across the UK are living in poverty, and the two-child limit is one of the biggest drivers of rising deep poverty among children. Alongside that, the benefit cap disproportionately harms some of the most vulnerable in our society. Single parents, disabled households and families struggling with high housing costs are penalised regardless of their actual needs. And in an area where the ratio of income-to-housing cost is one of the highest in the country, families in South Devon are particularly hard hit. That is not just unfair; it is a failed policy that is causing real harm to children and their families.

The Liberal Democrats believe that these arbitrary limits must be removed. We would replace them with an evidence-led approach to social security, one that recognises the complexity of family life and the genuine needs of children. Investing in children is not only right; it makes economic sense. Supporting families now reduces future strain on healthcare, social services and the justice system. It strengthens community and saves public money. The Government must end the two-child limit and the benefit cap. That is the most effective way to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and we owe it to our children to do better.

Pessimism is understandable when brutality is overpowering. Just over a year ago, the British public tried to shake off that pessimism and emerge from the brutal reality of life in Britain after 14 years of relentless cuts that have torn apart the social safety net of our country. It is little wonder that people felt so pessimistic.

The motion on welfare before us is the continuation of the austerity that has contributed to Britain becoming an incredibly unequal society. In 2010, 30,000 people needed an emergency food parcel; now, that figure is over 3 million and rising. Nearly 80% of people who are reliant on food banks are in work. While the very richest have received tax breaks and enjoyed seeing their wealth grow at eye-watering rates, we have seen the creation of a new stratum of society: the in-work poor. It is telling of the politics of this country that despite being the sixth largest economy in the world, we have people in full-time employment who are reliant on the generosity of others to survive. That is pure political failure. Morally, it is just not right.

Having a child is a blessing, and not a blessing that everyone receives. The two-child cap is an inherently cruel policy that punishes the least advantaged. The idea that a third, fourth or fifth child is worth less than the first two is beyond wicked.

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. The Government have not yet set out their policy on the two-child limit. If they decide not to scrap it, will he support that policy?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, which I will come on to. He has clearly had advance sight of my speech.

The Government should of course lift the two-child cap immediately, and it was wrong of them not to make that a part of the King’s Speech.

The wording in the motion referring to a “benefits culture” is both lazy and classist, not to mention demonstrating the ignorance—wilful or otherwise—of the Conservatives about the struggles experienced by millions in this country. However, I expect that from some in the Conservative party. I agree that the welfare system is broken and that it needs changed, but the changes it needs are not to be found in this motion or in what the Government put before the House last week. Like thousands of my fellow party members, I do not expect that from the Labour party. Last week’s vote was a stain on a great party that should be defending and fighting for the people that this motion seeks to belittle.

Improving living standards should be the priority of this Government and every Government, and we are not doing nearly enough—not yet. A year into this Government, what people need is not MPs creating a living standards coalition group; they need them voting in this place to improve living standards, not writing letters about improving living standards. After last week’s vote, which came too late for disabled people, I urge MPs to wake up before making the same mistake again.

I urge the Government to resist going down the road of pitting old people against children or children against striking workers, or any of that nonsense. Leave that division and nastiness to other parties that seek to divide and conquer and create inequality.

I call the shadow Minister.

It has been a very good debate, and I am very grateful to all hon. Members across the House who have contributed.

It is still no clearer to us what the Government think or intend to do about the two-child cap, but it has been very good to hear so many strong voices from the Opposition Benches for and against the two-child limit. Of course, we do not really know what the Prime Minister himself thinks. He campaigned for the Labour leadership on a promise to scrap the two-child limit; then, in order to win the general election, he campaigned to keep it. Now, under pressure from his Back Benchers—once again, I pay tribute to the real powers in the Labour party—he is hinting that he will scrap it after all at a cost of £3.5 billion. Add to that the £4.5 billion the Government have to find because they abandoned their welfare reforms and the £1.3 billion they lost when they U-turned on the winter fuel payment, and the Government will have to find £9.3 billion this autumn.

I would like to clear up what this Prime Minister and Government have done. They have expanded eligibility for free school meals to include more than 3,000 children in Bracknell Forest; expanded Best Start family hubs, which is something the previous Government never funded in Bracknell Forest; expanded the warm home scheme; rolled out free breakfast clubs in primary schools; limited expensive school uniforms to three branded items—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that interventions must not be his speech read out at speed.

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his recitation, much of which was Conservative policy now rebranded by the Labour Government and the rest was further spending commitments. The Government are incapable of cutting spending, so we know where this is headed: tax rises in the autumn. There will also be tax rises on wealth. We know what wealth is: it is the product of economic success. It is what happens when people risk their capital and make things that people want. Wealth means more jobs, higher wages and more tax revenues. It means that we can reduce debt and invest in more businesses. And wealth taxes, which are coming, will mean less of all that. That is the Labour way—circling the drain and then going down to national bankruptcy. That is where a wealth tax and welfare spending lead us to, and the rest of the House seems to support that plan.

According to the latest DWP data, more than 11,800 children in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley are living in poverty. This is not abstract and it is not inevitable; it is a direct result of policy choices by the previous Government and the maintenance of that policy by the current Government. One parent shared—

Order! May I please urge people to make interventions short and pithy and not pre-prepared and read out.

I will come in a moment to the matter of child poverty, and I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

I was just referring to the fact that all the parties except ours—indeed, it is unclear what those on the Government Front Bench think—seem to support lifting the two-child cap. The Liberal Democrats cannot seem to see a spending opportunity without grabbing it with both hands. Their spokesman, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), spent £4.5 billion just in his speech earlier this afternoon. Then we have the SNP Government, who have presided over higher economic inactivity and lower employment than in England, have missed all their targets for child poverty, and still clamour for more money for welfare.

Then there is the Reform party, which is sadly absent today. I do quite like the Reform party and I agree with its Members on lots of things, but there is a problem: they would spend money like drunken sailors. I can see what is happening and I am very worried about it—they will end up in an electoral pact with the Liberal Democrats with a joint ticket to protect welfare spending. I do not know how hon. Members feel about the anticipated alliance.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and others, particularly Members on the Government Benches, have cited widening poverty rates over the past decade or more, and they repeatedly raised the issue of 4.5 million children, but they are talking about relative poverty. The fact is that relative poverty increased under the previous Government because, overall, the economy grew, as more people became more prosperous. As the median income rises, more people come under it; that is how it works. If relative poverty goes down under this Government, it will be because they shrank the economy. That is highly likely, but it is not an achievement to boast about.

Relative poverty is not a measure of anything except the operation of the law of averages. Therefore, what we need to look at is real poverty, absolute poverty. As we rescued the public finances and grew the economy, absolute poverty went down under the Conservatives.

On children, the percentage of children in absolute poverty after housing costs fell between 2010 and 2024. We pulled 800,000 people out of absolute poverty and averted over a million more people falling into absolute poverty. We had more people in work, a higher employment rate, and fewer workless households than since records began. We should thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for that. Mention was made of Wilberforce and Disraeli. One day they will add the name of Duncan Smith to that great record.

Order. That should have been “the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green”.

It just doesn’t flow as well, but yes, apologies Madam Deputy Speaker.

In 2023, the shadow Minister said:

“The narrative that the public has now firmly adopted—that over 13 years things have got worse—is one we just have to acknowledge and admit.”

Does he still acknowledge and admit that things got worse under his Government?

I am grateful to the hon. Member’s archaeology in finding my previous quotes. Many things did get worse over the last decade and a half—of course I recognise that. But much of it was as a consequence of the global financial meltdown that his party presided over. We spent many painful years fixing the deficit that Labour left us.

I want to quickly cite the previous Government’s record on young people. Labour Members have boasted of the new Labour years, but in 1997 youth unemployment stood at 650,000, and by the time Blair and Brown had finished in 2010 it was up a third to 940,000. When we left office 14 years later, we had almost halved it down to 560,000—lower even than in 1997. That is the Conservative record.

I will conclude shortly, but I first say to those across the House who want to lift the child benefit cap to consider what they are asking. They are asking working people who pay more in tax than they receive in public services—and who themselves have had to take agonising decisions about whether or not they can afford to have another child given the taxes they pay—to fund the benefits for other people who receive more from the system than they pay in.

The shadow Minister makes a point about the state funding children. Does he accept that a million families that have three or more children receive child benefit presently? If he accepts that point, does he, as a father of three—as am I—not accept the principle that those children come first under the child benefit? What is the difference between child benefit and universal credit? Does he want to cap child benefit at two children?

The difference is that child benefit is paid to everybody. Child benefit is a universal entitlement. We need to ensure that we are not adding to the incentives in the system to live a life on benefits. I fully recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

When I say that some people receive more from the system than they pay in, I am not trying to stigmatise those people. That point has been thrown at us, but it is not the case. I am not stigmatising people who receive more in benefits than they pay in tax. Life is not all about whether someone is a net fiscal contributor or not. I agree with points made by some Members that we should think more about social structures than fiscal transfers, but when it comes to fiscal policy there is a limit. Reciprocity matters, and when we are talking about money, it is right that people living on benefits face something of the same realities as people who pay for themselves.

We still have too many families trapped in welfare. What we need is more families and, yes, larger families supporting themselves through well-paid work. We need a tax system like that in Europe, America and across the world, which recognises families. The previous Government made an important step with the changes to the high-income child benefit charge, which was scrapped by Labour. The best thing we can do for families is to get the tax system and, crucially, the wider economy right, so that we have good growth, good jobs, higher wages, flexible childcare and strong communities.

The shadow Minister talks about trade-offs in public finances, growth and child poverty. In the period since 2015-16, there was zero progress on absolute poverty and zero progress on relative poverty—public finances ruined and growth flat. Does he not think that the central trade-off was between a Tory Government and a thriving country?

The story of the last 14 years is quite easily told. In 2010 there was a budget deficit of 9%, and we had almost fiscal bankruptcy. We spent 10 years very painfully restoring the public finances at great cost, and I totally understand that. Then we were back down to a balanced budget. Then covid hit, and we spent the last five years trying to recover from that. On welfare, we have a very proud record of reducing unemployment and making work pay. Since covid we now have this great problem of disability and sickness benefits. That is the challenge that we were undertaking to fix as we left office and that the Government have now completely failed to conclude.

It is not too late. I am glad to see the Minister for Social Security and Disability in his place. His review should not wait until next autumn; we need it this autumn. We need proper plans to fix the welfare system, not just to increase spending as the Government are now doing. I urge hon. Members across the House to support our motion. Let me be clear: every Member who does not is voting for welfare dependency and national bankruptcy. Only the Conservatives have a plan to fix this.

Before I turn to some of the rawer politics as the debate demands, I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this important debate. Like other hon. Members, I am appalled by the level of child poverty in this country. Running through the debate was an underlying and understandable anger at the unacceptable increase in child poverty since 2010, with 1.1 million children using food banks to eat.

I am sure that the Minister wants to give a fair and balanced overview, and we all wish to see fewer people in relative poverty, notwithstanding his support last week for a measure that would have put it up by a quarter of a million. Just to have balance on the record, does he recognise that, in absolute terms, between 2010 and 2024 the number of children in poverty dropped by 300,000, and the number of people in poverty overall by 800,000?

I absolutely accept that the Conservative party, because of its shameful record, made a fundamental change to the way in which poverty is assessed. We have returned to the internationally recognised comparator that exposes that shameful record. We will not run away from that internationally recognised comparator. It is on that on which we will be judged, and the Conservatives must also be judged on that.

I thank Labour Members who spoke in the debate so passionately about the work that the Government have already done on child poverty and the Conservative party’s shameful record. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd North (Gill German), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance)—and, yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). He and I may not agree on the process being followed by the Government to tackle child poverty wherever we see it, but I do not doubt his commitment and support to tackling it.

I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for his powerful personal testimony about his upbringing, and about the stigma of poverty and the shame that many parents feel when they require extra support. Like him, I grew up in modest circumstances, as one of five children. For a period, in a single-parent household, we were dependent on tax credits, child tax credits and the education maintenance allowance—remember that? I will not allow privately educated Conservative spokespeople to lecture us on the plight of struggling families up and down the country when they have shown no care at all about the part they played in putting many of those families into crisis.

That is so low.

What is low is scrapping the Child Poverty Act in 2016. The Conservatives’ record on child poverty is cheap and low. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) can continue to chunter from a sedentary position; I could reel off their record all day.

Will the Minister give way?

I will not at the moment.

Let me come to the shadow Secretary of State, who, like many Conservative Members, was in total denial of the Conservative record, not only on child poverty, but on the welfare bill, which has spiralled enormously since 2020. They put 4.5 million children in poverty, and they come here with this motion. There was no recognition of the fact that almost 60% of families affected by the two-child limit are in work. There was no understanding of the lack of clarity in their motion, which does not specify whether it relates only to universal credit and child tax credit. It says that children “should not receive” any “additional funding”. What of child benefit? What of disability living allowance for children? The motion is not worth the paper it is written on, unless that is now their policy.

The Conservatives have talked about personal and fiscal responsibility—quite unbelievable from the party that crashed the economy and left the welfare bill spiralling. They take no responsibility for their actions at all, but they seek to lecture others on how they should live their lives. The shadow Secretary of State talked about giving families broader support—for instance, through family hubs. How many Sure Start centres closed under the previous Government? In their first 10 years alone, it was 1,300. Then, we heard that only the Conservatives understand the importance of living within their means. I have two words for the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately): Liz Truss.

In Wales, sadly, we have some of the highest rates of child poverty in the United Kingdom, and some of the highest across Europe. Why is that? Why is poverty so stubbornly high in Wales, and would lifting the cap not improve things for Welsh children?

Lifting the cap is one of the many levers that the Government are considering. We will look at that in the round, and when we come forward with our child poverty strategy, we will look to lift children in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and here in England—children up and down this country—out of poverty, because that is a moral mission for this Government. Indeed, we have already started that important work, with free breakfast clubs, free school meals for families on universal credit, restrictions on branded school uniform items and, to the point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), proposed changes to the Child Maintenance Service. We will also abolish direct pay, which was created by the Conservative party. This will lift 20,000 children out of poverty.

I am deeply moved by the Minister’s commitment to reducing poverty. Will he explain why, as a Minister, he supported the Government’s proposals in the Universal Credit Bill last week, which their own impact assessments said would increase poverty?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was £1 billion worth of employment support alongside those measures, the impacts of which are yet to be scored by the Office for Budget Responsibility. We are serious about getting people back to work as a route to tackling poverty, as well as providing an important safety net for those who need it.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) asked why others should subsidise someone’s third, fourth or fifth child. I say gently to the Conservatives that it is never the child’s fault. A third child has the same right to thrive as the first two, and if they do not, all three children suffer. A hungry child is a hungry child, whatever their background.

On that point—

I am afraid I will not take any further interventions, as I only have a couple of minutes left. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) tempted me to speculate about decisions around taxation. He will appreciate that that is way above my pay grade, and I hope that he is patient enough to wait for the next fiscal event to get an answer to his question.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given collective responsibility, is it in order for a Minister of the Crown to argue against a policy of his own Government? If I have understood correctly, it is the policy of the Government and the Labour party to maintain the two-child benefit cap.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for the Chair, and he is seeking to drag me into the debate.

It is also not what I said, Madam Deputy Speaker. I said that we on our child poverty taskforce are considering all available levers in the lead-up to the child poverty strategy, which will come in the autumn.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), made a point about controlling welfare spend. Yet again, we heard that the four years post-covid were not an appropriate time to tackle the spiralling welfare bill that the Conservatives created. In those four long years, the Conservative party got through three Prime Ministers, five Ministers for health and work, six Secretaries of State for Education and seven Sunak resets, yet the welfare bill continued to spiral. Child poverty worsened, and we had wasted years, so we will take no lectures from the Conservatives on welfare spend, and certainly not on the best way to tackle child poverty.



This party inherited the Conservatives’ shameful legacy of disastrous levels of child poverty and a broken social security system that fails to command people’s trust. Across Government, we have started the urgent work to fix these problems and to drive down child poverty once again, as the last Labour Government did, in partnership with the devolved Administrations, charities, local authorities and others, and to build a fairer, more sustainable social security system that helps people build better lives by giving them the right incentives and support. We will do that important work because tackling child poverty is a moral mission for this Government, and we will oppose this motion today because all levers are under active consideration as we seek to do so.

Before I put the Question, I will just remind the Minister that, like the shadow Minister, he should not be referring to Members by their name in the Chamber but by their constituency.

Question put.