Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Lord Bird Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bird (CB)]

I say “well done” to the noble Lord, Lord Walker. I was confused when I was asked to follow the noble Lord and, in the tradition of the House, to praise him. I thought to myself, “I don’t know anything about Walkers crisps”. That was the only Walker I knew. Then I thought, “Ah no, it is Johnnie Walker”. For a while I was confused, but I got there in the end.

What really excites me about what the noble Lord is doing, as well as putting a lot of people into work, is the idea that he extended the hand to people who had been banged up. He has given jobs to people who were in prison. I am glad that the noble Lord is in competition with Timpson. I think, in a way, he is a bit ahead of it and maybe it is going to have to catch up. It is a good bit of competition. The only problem I have with the noble Lord—and I really do have a problem—is: where was he when I needed him? I remind noble Lords that I am an ex-offender.

I turn to the Bill. What a wonderful Bill, to get rid of something like this. We may like it or not; we may or may not be with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, wanting to give hand ups rather than handouts. I have to say that the noble Baroness stole that from me; she knows that. I was the first person in the United Kingdom to use those terms, and I stole them from Bill Clinton, who stole them from Jesse Jackson. Is that not interesting? Is it not wonderful that we can talk about a hand up, not a handout? The whole of my working life, since starting the Big Issue 34 years ago, has been about giving people a hand up, not a handout.

My mother had six children. Every year that she had a baby, she got poorer—and poorer and poorer. Big families are not good for the bottom line. They are not good for you. But the problem with this Bill, and where I fall out with our Conservative friends, is that while it may punish mum and dad, it really punishes the children. To me, if we need anything in life today, it is to be behind our children. Our children are being undone before us: mobile phones and social media are undermining them. Our children are really at the sharp end of things.

I come from the pre-social security period. We were brought up with very little help from the state—in the 1950s and 1960s, there was none of that. We got five shillings per child: that was about one pound and 10 shillings for a family of six boys. Because Britain is a low-wage and low-investment economy, British capitalism is really good at making slithers of money out of jobs that are low-paid. It is very difficult now for a lot of people to nobly go out to work and earn enough money to feed themselves and their children, even though they are doing a 40-hour week. We are a low-wage economy because we are a low-investment economy.

Capitalism is quite happy with that. It does not matter if you make millions of pounds out of slithers of profit, or whether you buy and sell things that are worth £50,000 each. This is the thing that I came into the House of Lords to try to sort out: I came in to dismantle poverty, not to make the poor more comfortable, nor to keep them outside as though they were a different species. I have listened to the debate so far. I am not sentimentally attached to the poor; I do not cry over them. I think there are too many people who cry over the poor and who do not do anything. I want to get the poor out of poverty. I want to get the poor into a situation where they can make decisions about their own lives, where they can have the kind of life that they want, where they can get rich and socially mobile and get out of poverty. There is only one cure for poverty and it is not the state. The only cure is social mobility. If you get social mobility, you are out of it.

The funny thing is that most people in Britain, even Conservatives, will be a few generations away from the coalface. They will have morphed their way to better times. The problem is the inheritance of poverty—for example, 90% of the people I have worked with in prisons and on the streets come from poverty inherited from their parents. Until we work on that, we will not get anywhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am so grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I love listening to maiden speeches, when we get an insight into the range and depth of experience coming into this House. Today we heard three magnificent examples. If anyone outside is listening, that exceptional richness of experience is what this House can bring to debates. We have heard about defence and air power; conflict and resolving conflict; climbing mountains, both literal and metaphorical; the importance of business; the compelling relational power of tea in the Long Room and learning to play dominoes—I may be better at one of those than the other, but maybe time will tell. I thank all noble Lords so much for coming in and contributing.

In developing our child poverty strategy, we engaged extensively with all kinds of people, including families, campaigners and experts. The aim was to try to work out what would have the greatest impact on the day-to-day lives of children living in poverty. The message was really clear: remove the two-child limit. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Shah for pointing out the challenges we inherited and why it takes time for Governments to work through dealing with everything that comes out.

The Bill is supported by over 60 organisations, representing anti-poverty charities, which is perhaps not surprising, but also children’s doctors, teachers and health visitors—the people who know only too well the damaging effects of poverty and see its consequences every day. I remain very grateful for the work of the campaigning organisations, those professionals who support our children and all those who pushed for this change, including the Bishops’ Bench. I share the remembrance of the former right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who pushed for this in his time in this House.

The Bill is an investment to deliver a better future for children and for our country. Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, have set out the devastating impact that poverty has on children. Many, including my noble friend Lord Babudu, have pointed out that poverty is not evenly distributed.

Poverty imposes really significant costs on individuals and the country. Let me start with the Official Opposition, because they have set out clearly why they oppose this. It is my experience, in many years in and around politics, that, if you want to defend the indefensible, the first thing you do is set up some clearly false dichotomies. What have we listened to today? “It is children versus defence”. Of course it is not. If I were going to play politics, I would point out that, if the Conservatives felt that passionately about it when they were in government, maybe they should not have cut £12 billion from defence spending in their first term alone; maybe they should not have cut spending from the 2.5% the last Labour Government left, pushing us to raise it to 2.6% by next year; maybe they should have slashed child poverty. They were not choosing between the two things: they attacked both of them. Now, we could have that kind of conversation, or we could have a different kind of conversation. Let us take a step back and look at what actually happens with the policies.

What is the other false dichotomy? I think we fall into making a mistake if we try to set up social security versus work. I am not repeating the figure that 59% of families hit by the two-child limit are in work, in order to make a political point; I am pointing out that our social security system is there to help people in and out of work, and to help them get from being out of work into being in work. If the barriers get in the way of people being able to move into work, the system is not doing its job. Every time we start trying to pretend that this is contrasting people lying in bed all day with the blinds shut with those who go out to work, we do everyone a disservice. Please let us not have that conversation.

What we want to do is recognise that we have to enable work, encourage work and take away the barriers to work—that is really important—and that neither those in nor out of work are static populations: people move between those states, for a whole range of reasons. Our job is to make sure that, for those who can work, they stay in work as much as they can, for as long as they can, and, if they come out, to help them back into it when they can—but, if they cannot, to support them, because that is what we do by pooling risk.

The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, made some very interesting points. I parted company with him when he got to a certain point in his speech, but he made a really interesting point in saying that this policy is clearly not a panacea. The state cannot and should not pretend that it can solve all the problems families have, and the state does not raise children: families do.

The starting point, however, is that, if we want to tackle child poverty, as the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, said he does, the first thing we have to do is stop making it worse: stop tipping more children into poverty every year. The second step is to work out what the barriers are to people moving into work and developing in their lives. The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, mentioned some of those that are nothing to do with money, and the state can only do what it can to try to make it as easy as possible for families to do the right thing: investing in relationships education, supporting families —all kinds of education—and communities and relationships. What the state can do is tackle the things it can do something about. It is definitely not all about money, but it is not not about money: the statistics show really clearly, for example, the impact of poverty on family breakup and on parents struggling to do the right thing by their kids. We need to do both.

The next thing we need to do is create opportunities. I always hate disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Bird, because I know that he will come back at me, rightly, but we have to start to move not away from but beyond “handout versus hand up”. I absolutely agree with him that our job is to give people a hand up. He has done that in his time—as, indeed, has the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—but I would not contrast that with any support the state gives to those who are struggling when they need it. A lot of what we do is on both those things. Like my noble friend Lord Walker, I have a real interest in how we use my department to help those who are struggling to get into work. Just this week, I was at a conference talking to businesses that are helping ex-offenders into work.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I knew I should not have mentioned him.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

Is it not wonderful that social security can be used as a hand up? That is the point I am trying to make. I am not trying to make the point of work versus social security. I am saying that a hand up is absolutely marvellous. The greatest hand up that I got was a probation officer.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

Indeed, and that probation officer clearly did a very good job: look where the noble Lord has ended up. Would that they were all that successful. I suppose that that is quite a high bar at which to set them, but I commend it. That is a really great point, and I am now violently agreeing with the noble Lord; but I will move on.

I want the social security system to do its job, and for most people its job is to support them into work, and in work, and to develop them in work. That is very much what this Government are seeking to do.

One of the challenges with universal credit is about assumptions. It was designed to move people into and out of work—to work in and out of work—and when it works it does so very well. All we are doing is making sure that the system works even better than it does. But the assumption that this Government are doing the wrong thing by spending money on tackling child poverty is fundamentally mistaken. My noble friend Lord Walker talked about the need to make sure we tackle NEETs, for example. We have one in eight of our young people not in employment, education or training. They did not start at 16.