Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Debate between Jeevun Sandher and Gareth Snell

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

[Dr Sandher]

The rise happened before covid; it happened after the two-child limit was introduced. I agree with the hon. Lady on one point: she is not across the statistics.

Opposition Members have advanced an argument that I think is fair. They ask why we do not just create lots of jobs, which is the way to get out of poverty. The way to get out of poverty is through work, right? I want to take that argument head-on. We are living in a different technological era. In the post-war era, we had the advance and expansion of mass-production manufacturing, which meant there were good jobs for people as they left school. They left school, went to the local factory and earned a decent wage, meaning that they could buy a house and support a family.

Then, in the 1980s, in this country and indeed across high-income nations, we saw deindustrialisation and automation, bringing the replacement of those mechanical jobs with machines. Like other high-income nations across the world, we have been left with those who can use computers effectively—high-paid graduate workers—and lots of low-paid jobs everywhere else. It is not just us confronting that problem, although it is worse here because of decisions made in the 1980s; we are seeing it across high-income nations. As a result, state support is needed to ensure that those on low pay can afford a decent life.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Sandher]

In a moment.

This is not, by the way, the first time in history that we have confronted this problem. In the early part of the industrial revolution, between 1750 and 1850, we saw machines replace human beings. What did we see then? The economy grew by 60% per person, but people had less to eat. Men were shorter in 1850 than in 1750 because of the change of the technological era. I think my right hon. Friend would like to intervene.

[Gareth Snell]

I am an hon. Friend, not right honourable, though I welcome the promotion.

I have listened to this debate from outside the Chamber this afternoon and heard many Conservative Members talk about how the route out of poverty is through work. I absolutely and fundamentally agree with that, so I find it completely incongruous that whenever they have had the opportunity to vote for our make work pay Act, to increase stability in work and create well-paid jobs, they have voted against it. Indeed, only last week, the shadow Secretary of State made an argument for cutting the minimum wage for young people. How does my hon. Friend think that someone can argue, on the one hand, for work as a way out of poverty, but on the other, restrict the opportunities for work, push down pay and reduce the opportunities created for working people?

[Dr Sandher]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Conservative Members have often spoken about their employment record in office and how many jobs were created. Yet while that happened, child poverty and child hunger rose. Something is not right in their model of the world and there is something to review there.

There is no law of economics that says that just because someone works hard and is a decent person, they will earn a wage that can support a family. That is not the technological era we live in today. That is why we are ending the two-child limit today and I am so proud that we are doing so.

In an economic sense—in pounds and pence—as Labour Members realise and have stated, when we ensure that children have enough to eat, they learn more today and they earn more tomorrow. The cost of child poverty every single year is around £40 billion. The cost of ending the two-child limit is about £3.5 billion. It makes sense to invest today so that our children can eat and learn more, yet this is not just a matter of pounds and pence; as an economist, I often talk about that and I get it, but it is about so much more. This is about the moral argument. No child in this country should go hungry—no ifs, no buts and no exceptions. That is why I am so proud of this Bill, I am so proud to vote to end the two-child limit and I am so proud to be sat on the Labour Benches.

Energy

Debate between Jeevun Sandher and Gareth Snell

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sandher]

I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Our plan, which used to be shared across the House, is precisely to invest in cleaner, cheaper energy for all, because we know that wind and solar are 60% cheaper than natural gas. We know that because, after the capital costs, wind and solar are free. As for the network costs, we need to balance them in any case, and renew our grid. That too was an approach that we shared across the House, and it is a shame to see where we are.

Beyond investing in clean energy, which is cheaper, we are also investing in home insulation so that people use less energy at home and bills are lower for families, and they do have faith in us in this place. On top of that, we are redistributing the costs through the warm home discount and the standing charge. I am so glad that the living standards coalition put that forward.

[Gareth Snell]

National Energy Action estimates that Stoke-on-Trent is No. 1 in the country for fuel poverty. According to its analysis, even if we reduce energy bills, as we will do, most of the energy will simply disappear through leaky windows, draughty doors and uninsulated homes. Does my hon. Friend accept, agree and acknowledge that there must be a twin-track approach, and that not only must we bring down the overall cost of energy, but houses must use less energy so that we are cleaner, greener and cheaper?

[Dr Sandher]

The House will be shocked to hear that I do agree. This is about getting bills down for families, which is so important. When homes are insulated, that reduces energy demand as well, which means that our transition is easier and cheaper. When we build and insulate homes, that is not just good for bills, it is not just good for people, but it is good for jobs as well—good non-graduate jobs, of which there are too few in our move to a post-industrial economy.

Most important of all, however, is getting carbon down for good. The decisions that we make now, and the carbon that we emit, will live with us for ever. Either we, in this place and across the country, will make these innovations and live up to our duty to this generation and those in the future—either we will stop emitting carbon, which will mean cheaper and cleaner energy, and our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be thankful to us—or we will not. This is the moment for us to rise to. This is why we are investing in that cheaper, cleaner energy—yes, so that it gets bills down for good, but also to ensure that we live up to the promise we make to the generations to come.