Social Security: Child Poverty

Debate between Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lord Katz

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My noble friend is right. We want to make sure that the social security system is there to support all families when they need it, while taking action to make sure that work pays. Our ambition is that social security provides a safety net where needed and that it supports families to increase income through work where possible. At the same time, the Government are committed to ensuring that welfare spending remains on a sustainable path. We set a new welfare cap at the Autumn Budget 2024 to ensure that welfare spending remains under control over the course of this Parliament. Overall, forecast welfare spending is virtually unchanged from the last OBR assessment, increasing by only 0.1% in 2029-30. Tackling child poverty requires investment, including in our social security system. The cost of failing to tackle poverty is too high, both for children and for the country. This Government are investing up front to avoid those costs of failure.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, what role will work play in alleviating poverty in this country, given that work has benefits beyond the financial difference it makes to a family household?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right. We want to see everyone who can work working. That is why we have taken a number of actions to fix our broken social security system and to get people into work, particularly when it comes to targeting the over 1 million NEETs—young people not in education, employment or training—and giving them a start. For instance, the new youth jobs grant incentivises employers to take on young people who have been on universal credit for over 18 months, giving them jobs, with a £3,000 grant.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lord Katz

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 127, 128 and 139 from my noble friend Lady Penn. I too am a father, so I have an interest in that regard. These amendments will be very useful to the poorest families in the country because currently, only the very well paid get access to serious paternal leave.

As someone who comes from a community that has suffered horribly from the absence of fathers, I know that an early intervention that ties a father emotionally, financially and in any other way to that family unit is very important. The impact it has on educational outcomes and the finances of the family into the future are hugely important. My community is more than three times more likely to be impacted by poverty and all the downsides that poverty inflicts because of that lack of an initial paternal connection to the family.

This country is also facing a very low birth rate. Many young men in this country will tell you that they cannot afford to have children. Paternity leave will be a big part of addressing that. So, supporting our birth rate in this country—addressing that demographic time bomb—is very important.

The mental health of men in this country has been poor for a very long time. Part of turning that around is improving how fatherhood is perceived, so that young men in particular lean into that role and take pride in being a father. That also has a strong knock-on effect for the women involved: they receive support in the home, and it helps them return to their own careers, as we have heard from so many Members of your Lordships’ House. In the poorest communities in this country, many of the real breadwinners in the household are the women. If they can be supported back to work, that will have a profound impact on the mental well-being of the entire family.

I have been on a personal journey to make this a day one right. Because of the profound effect that the lack of a father in the household has on many aspects of society, this should be a day one right. Basically, some things are just worth paying for, and if this has a cost to the Government, so be it, because the upsides, socially and financially, are massive and beyond measurement.

Lastly, as is well documented and as many noble Lords have already said, the benefits to companies are profound. The challenge will be the smaller companies, where one or two people form a significant proportion of the workforce. That is where this conversation has to be sold, where the rhetoric is important, because if smaller companies adopt this approach, I believe it will happen. Larger companies already know the benefits this has for their workforce.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on this amendment be adjourned.