Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

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

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak for the next hour, while there is no time limit. [Laughter.] Buckle in!

I want to start today’s speech by first addressing what the Conservatives said and why we need state support to help end child poverty in the technological era we are in. I also want to make clear why we are ending the two-child limit. In the economic sense, yes, it is a pounds and pence issue—we save more money by feeding kids today—but far more importantly, morally no child in this country should be going hungry.

Before I get to that, I would like to share with the House where I spent two years of my life between 2016 and 2018, when I was the economist working in Somaliland’s Ministry of Finance. I was there during what was then its worst drought in living memory. When drought came to Somaliland—one of the poorest nations on earth—it meant failing harvests, dying livestock and rising hunger. I will never forget what that hunger looked like and what it felt like for a whole nation.

I could understand what was happening in Somaliland, even if it was incredibly difficult, but I was shocked and appalled on returning to this country to see children going hungry here—in the fifth richest nation on earth. Those children went hungry after the introduction of the two-child limit. Poverty went up in the largest families, who were affected by the two-child limit, and child hunger went up. Food bank parcels were unknown in my childhood; there were a million handed out in 2017, and three million by the time the Conservatives left office. Most shamefully of all, child malnutrition has doubled over the past decade. That is the shameful legacy of the two-child limit and what it meant for child hunger in this country.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Trussell Trust was founded in this country in 2000, under a Labour Government, and that the Department for Work and Pensions did not recommend that it be offered as a solution to families in need at the time? It is one thing to talk about food banks, but it is important to ensure that we acknowledge when they were first set up in this country.

[Dr Sandher]

Did the guidance change between 2016 and 2024? Could the hon. Lady explain to me from the Opposition Front Bench why the number of food bank parcels tripled from the introduction of the two-child limit to 2024? I will give way if so.

[Rebecca Smith]

Well, without having the statistics in front of me right this second—[Interruption.] No, let me finish. We had the global pandemic, when there was a huge need for food banks. In fact, it was the Conservative Government who invested hundreds of thousands of pounds in food banks to ensure that nobody went without. The council for which I was a cabinet member at the time used the funding from the Conservative Government directly to ensure that poverty did not increase over the covid pandemic. If numbers went up, we have to ensure that that fact is reflected.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I first put on record my thanks to my Deep Heat patch; three hours of bobbing with a bad back has been a very special introduction to this debate. I welcome the opportunity to highlight an issue that is the driving mission of so many of us and the reason why we are in this House.

Like many Members, I had the opportunity over December to attend services at some of the wonderful churches across Peterborough. That was not just Christmas spirit; there is nothing more majestic than the raising of voices “to the newborn King” by a packed congregation in a 900-year-old cathedral. At every service, I met congregations dedicated to helping others in my city. Child poverty was at the heart of those conversations—the impact of child poverty on the children themselves, but also its corrosive impact on parents and on all of us in society. Nothing goes to the heart of Labour’s values more than addressing the corrosion that poverty causes in young lives, and I am deeply proud to speak in this Second Reading debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation that this Government are bringing forward.

I would like to use this opportunity to thank the Peterborough food bank volunteers and our Care Zone furniture volunteers, whom I have met consistently since being elected, for the incredible work they have done to support and help families and children in need. I also thank the volunteers at KingsGate community church, who do so much to help families in need with food and debt advice, and to navigate the still-too-clunky networks of the DWP and the state.

That help is needed; we all know the national statistics. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) mentioned the Trussell Trust, and I looked up the figures in preparing my contribution: in 2010, the last year of the Labour Government, the Trussell Trust reported that just over 43,000 emergency food parcels were handed out; in the last year of the Conservative Government, more than 3 million food parcels were handed out.

[Rebecca Smith]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Pakes]

I would adore it.

[Rebecca Smith]

No one has ever told me that they would adore to hear me speak in this place! I completely appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I too have been doing some research while this debate has been going on. It is worth noting that those food bank numbers have increased because they only count Trussell Trust food banks, so the more food banks join the Trussell Trust network, the more those numbers go up.

In my city, where, as I may have mentioned, I held the cost of living portfolio during the pandemic—[Interruption.] There’s no need to yawn! My city did not need the additional food bank that was set up, and it ended up having to send food away. If that food bank had joined the Trussell Trust, it would have added to those numbers and distorted the figures. While I am not saying that there might not have been an increase, I believe it is worth recognising that particular point.

[Andrew Pakes]

It is a very unusual way to defend food bank use to say that it is because poverty is now being counted in a better way. The Trussell Trust is very clear that when Labour was last in government, food banks existed as an emergency provision for when people fell through the cracks of the welfare system. The industrialisation of food banks is shocking, as is the justification of it by the Conservatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I will start by repeating something that the Secretary of State said at the start of the debate. He made much of the need to set against anger and division, so I am going to appeal to everyone’s better nature. Ultimately, the removal of the two-child limit was not in the Labour party’s manifesto, so until recently it was not something to which the Government had committed—in fact, it was ruled out by the Chancellor. I have sat through the entire debate and I have to say that it is a bit rich of Government Members to lecture us today, when in 2024 the limit was clearly good enough for the Labour party, including the current Prime Minister and the Chancellor. It is also worth pointing out that we keep hearing the figures 4.5 million and half a million. It seems that the removal of the two-child limit will reduce the 4.5 million people who the Government say are in poverty by just half a million. It will be interesting to hear the Minister comment on that.

The debate has been caricatured as being rich Conservatives versus everyone else, but nothing could be further from the truth. We believe in a safety net, but we also believe in personal responsibility. Many of us on the Opposition Benches grew up on benefits. I am one of those people, and I was in fact worse off when the Labour Government came into power in 1997; they scrapped the child benefit and replaced it with working tax credit, and my mum supported by dad’s business and did not go to work in her own right while she raised her four children. When I am asked why I am a Conservative, that is what I say—and I have checked that this afternoon to ensure that I am factually accurate. We are speaking up for those who work hard and have high bills, as well as housing and food costs, but who are paying tax because they do not qualify for universal credit.

I want to make one final point before I come to the body of my speech. Lots has been said about free school meals this afternoon, but when I recently questioned the Department for Education on whether it has any record of the number of councils making the most of the auto-enrolment for free school meals, I was told that the Government do not have the figure. They might wish to go away and look at that. I absolutely appreciate that auto-enrolment helps the most vulnerable, but if the Government are not taking account of the levers in their hands to improve that system, then they need to do some work.

Having done my bit of ad-libbing, I will make some progress with my speech. Fundamentally, maintaining the two-child limit is about fairness—fairness to working parents who do the right thing, fairness to working parents who make difficult choices and fairness for families who live within their means.

[Sam Rushworth]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

No, I am going to make some progress.

We are talking about men and women who are working long hours in shops, schools, offices, construction sites and care homes right across the country. Why should families in receipt of universal credit have to avoid the difficult decisions about how many children they can afford, unlike those who are not in receipt of it?

Compassion is often framed in terms of supporting the most vulnerable, and rightly so—indeed, I have highlighted my own personal conviction on this in previous debates—but as one a colleague in my previous council career told me, “The left has no monopoly on compassion, Rebecca.”

Compassion cuts both ways. We must remember the millions of hard-working families across the UK who are not on large salaries yet fall outside any thresholds for universal credit—the families who earn the same for going to work as their neighbours do on universal credit. It is unfair to these parents to make them bear a double cost: raising their own children and subsidising other people’s.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Rebecca Smith]

No, I will not give way; I am going to make some progress.

These mums and dads are the backbone of our economy, and we cannot afford to let them down. Scrapping the cap reduces incentives for parents to look for a job or work longer hours. Why would they bother going to work, or working more, when they could get more in benefits? A strong economy must provide incentive structures that help people to do the right thing, and we tamper with these fundamental structures at our own peril.

[Gareth Snell]

On the point of doing the right thing, the data suggests that in the shadow Minister’s own constituency there are 1,160 children living in a household that does not currently receive universal credit support for the additional children. Some of them will be listening this evening, and some will be teenagers. What would she say to them? Would she tell them that she could do something this evening, but she is choosing not to? What is her justification to those children?

[Rebecca Smith]

I also speak for the 60% of the population who do not think we should be scrapping the cap. No doubt a large proportion of those people are also in my constituency.

As Conservatives, we believe in personal responsibility and living within our means. Our welfare system should be a safety net for the most vulnerable, not a lifestyle choice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has argued so powerfully. As I have alluded to, it seems that we are not alone; that principle of fairness is echoed across the country, with a recent YouGov poll finding that 57% of respondents believe that the cap should be retained.

The situation is particularly stark for self-employed mothers, who can only access statutory maternity allowance —a flat rate that falls far below what their peers can receive via their employer. I recently met one self-employed mother who told me that she is seriously weighing up whether to have a second child because she and her husband simply cannot afford it right now. This is a deeply personal dilemma, fraught with conflicting emotions. Equally, those not on benefits who have more children do not get paid more wages—they just have to absorb the extra costs within their budgets—so this idea that we need to give people more money because they have more children does not always make sense. However, this Government are determined to give families on universal credit a free pass; as a result, those families will not have to make those kinds of hard choices.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, for 70% of the poorest households currently subject to the two-child limit, any money they stand to gain from the scrapping of the limit will get partially or fully wiped out by the household benefit cap. How do the Government square that circle when they have been quoting the headline figures for poverty? As has been raised numerous times today by Opposition Members, if Labour truly followed its own logic on child poverty, it would also need to scrap the household benefit cap, at even greater cost to the taxpayer.

Conversely, 40% of those affected by the two-child limit will be exempt from the overall household benefit cap, because they have at least one claimant or child receiving health and disability benefits. This means that households with six children will get an additional £14,000 every single year. For larger families in particular, the financial gap between going to work and being out of work will shrink significantly. We are trapping good people in a bad system. Shockingly, one in four full-time workers would be better off on benefits than in work—that is 6 million workers across the UK whose neighbours on combined benefits are receiving more income than they are. It is no wonder that every day 5,000 people sign on to long-term sickness benefits. According to the Centre for Social Justice, a claimant who is receiving universal credit for ill health plus the average housing element and personal independence payment could receive the equivalent of a pre-tax salary of £30,100, and a family with three children receiving full benefits could get the equivalent of £71,000 pre-tax. How is this fairness?

At best, scrapping the cap is a sticking plaster that does not tackle the root causes of poverty. We know that work is the best route out of poverty—in fact, if this Government hit their ambitious target of increasing employment rates by 80%, that could lift approximately the same number of children out of poverty as scrapping the two-child limit. Instead, this Bill will be yet another strain on our ballooning benefits budget. If it had been retained, the two-child limit would have saved the taxpayer £2.4 billion in 2026-27, rising to £3.2 billion in 2030-31. Instead, the bill is being passed on to all those families I have spoken about already.

[Sam Rushworth]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

No, because I believe the hon. Gentleman’s Minister will want to have a fair share of time as well.

When it comes to reforming welfare spending, the Prime Minister has shown extraordinary weakness of resolve. Scrapping the two-child cap is simply a political decision to placate his Back Benchers, costing taxpayers billions. It is unaffordable for a welfare system that is already on its knees, and damaging to the very work incentives his party promotes. Indeed, no one voted for it at the general election. As the Leader of the Opposition has said,

“28 million people in Britain are now working to pay the wages and benefits of 28 million others. The rider is as big as the horse.”

Let us look at this through the eyes of hard-working parents and individuals. Many of their businesses and workplaces are already being hit by Labour’s damaging tax rises. These are people with a work ethic—they willingly shoulder the burden of supporting their families without relying on the state—but their commitment to doing the right thing is being thrown back in their face. The Conservatives are the only party truly standing by hard-working families. We are the only party serious about bringing the welfare bill under control and protecting taxpayers from yet more unavoidable costs. Keeping the cap is about fairness, responsibility and respect for the sacrifices that parents make every single day. To scrap it flies in the face of that.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I will speak in part to amendments 1 and 2, although we will not vote on them this evening. Essentially, I am speaking because we do not believe that scrapping the two-child limit and lifting it in this way is the way to tackle child poverty.

When the Conservatives introduced the two-child limit in 2017, we did so for one simple reason: fairness. We believed then, as we do now, that people on benefits should face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work. Nine years later, we stand by that principle.

The welfare state should be a safety net for people in genuine need, yet too many people feel that the welfare system has drifted from its original purpose. They see a system that rewards dependency while working families and individuals shoulder the tax burden. The two-child limit is a way of saying that work should pay, that taking responsibility should matter and that the system should stand with those who pull their weight.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I am excited to hear that the hon. Member thinks work should pay. Can she tell us why, under the last Government, we went from one in three children in poverty having a parent in work to two in three children in poverty having a parent in work?

[Rebecca Smith]

We know that poverty decreased under the last Government; I will make some progress.

True compassion for families in poverty means offering sustainable solutions, not just sticking plasters. We need to tackle the root causes of poverty, rather than masking the symptoms. That means dealing with structural issues that damage children’s life chances, rather than simply handing out more cash to families.

It is worth noting that the two-child limit has had no significant negative effects on school readiness for third and subsequent children in England. School readiness is the cornerstone metric of the Government’s opportunity mission. Labour and other opponents may criticise the cap for all sorts of reasons, but scrapping it will not be a cost-effective way of improving children’s educational development.

In terms of holistic solutions, we know that work is the single most transformative route out of poverty. Work provides stability, self-respect and the crucial stepping stones to a better future. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that families on universal credit can access meaningful employment. As I have said before, children in long-term workless households are four times more likely to be materially deprived, and they are 10% more likely to end up workless themselves.

When we were in government, Conservatives oversaw a consistent reduction in the number of children in workless households, yet under Labour that number has reached a nine-year high: there are now 1.2 million children living in homes where no parent has worked for over a year. Without a working parent at home, children miss out on seeing the rhythms and rewards of working life—the morning alarm, the daily routine, the pride of earning a wage and the discipline of saving up for things that matter. This Government seem bent on disincentivising work and destroying jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

Is the hon. Lady aware of what percentage of people currently subject to the two-child cap are in work? Is she aware that 22% of people on universal credit earn more money than the personal allowance and therefore pay income tax?

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which provides me with a great opportunity to say something that I realised again while preparing for this debate. We know that lots of working people claim universal credit, but what we do not know is how many hours those people work, which would enable us to ascertain how many of them are full-time workers and how many are part-time workers. Of course, if they are full-time workers, there is one argument to be made, but if—as I would assume—the vast majority are part-time workers, we need to be encouraging them to work more hours. Later in my speech, I am going to get to a point where this is a problem, given all the other passported benefits that they get once they are entitled to universal credit.

How can it be fair to expect working parents to subsidise other families’ decisions that lie beyond their own financial reach? We also must not forget the single people whose household overheads are higher than in dual-income households. In 2024, there were 8.4 million people living alone in the UK—nearly 30% of households. They, too, should not be saddled with the extra tax burden that scrapping the two-child limit will inevitably create.

This Labour Government prefer handouts to hard choices. Giving away cash will always be more popular than exercising fiscal responsibility—the Back Benchers like it, and the left-wing think-tanks like it. The families who will get thousands more pounds every year like it, and who can blame them? Spending other people’s money is an easy way for the Government to feel good about themselves, but that money must come from somewhere. This Government are only pretending that they can afford to scrap the cap; originally, they said that doing so was unaffordable. That is true—the cost of this policy will be about £3.5 billion—but instead of sticking to his guns, our Prime Minister has capitulated to his Back Benchers. It requires backbone to bring the welfare budget under control, and backbone is exactly what Labour lacks.

In contrast, previous Conservative Governments did indeed control spending; until the pandemic, spending on working-age welfare fell in real terms. That is why we have committed to save £23 billion. We will crack down on the abuse of Motability, we will stop handing out benefits to foreign nationals—because citizenship should mean something—and we will stop giving benefits to people with low-level mental health problems, to ensure that we can target support to the people who need it most.

Under Labour, the overall benefits bill continues to balloon. By the end of this decade, health and disability benefits alone are set to reach £100 billion—I did read that right. Scrapping the cap is fiscally irresponsible and Labour knows it. This Bill will only increase the tax burden on hard-working men and women whose household budgets are already being stretched to the limit.

[Jim Shannon]

I feel I have to disagree with the hon. Lady, for a very simple reason. The Minister has mentioned my comment on Second Reading that 50,000 children will be lifted out of poverty in Northern Ireland, and some 13,000 families will have a better standard of living. The mark of any society is that whenever those who are less well off need help, we must help them. That is why I think the Government are doing the right thing: they are helping to lift people out of poverty, and what is wrong with that?

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course how we care for the most vulnerable is the mark of our society, but as Conservatives we do not believe that it is simply about trying to lift them up by giving them extra cash. All we are doing is changing the relative poverty measure; we are not suddenly lifting all these people out of poverty because we are giving them more money. We do not know what they are going to spend that money on. What we need to do is spend the money not on sticking plasters, but on putting things in place that actually have a systemic impact. We need to bring people from long-term poverty into a long-term position in which they can afford what they need.

Inflation has soared to nearly twice as high a level as when this Government entered office. Food prices are rising. Utility bills are rising. Even the cost of relaxing at the pub with a beer is rising. We cannot lift children out of poverty by making the whole country poorer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has argued so persuasively. When inflation rises, spending power falls. The money people earn buys less, because each pound is worth less than before; indeed, the money people receive on benefits is also worth less because of inflation. Families feel it at the checkout, at the petrol station and with every bill that drops through the door.

Inflation not only squeezes families’ budgets, but narrows their choices. With the cost of everyday essentials continuing to climb, many working families are being forced to delay or even abandon plans for another child. Scrapping the two-child cap gives families on benefits a choice that many working households can no longer dream of: the ability to grow their family without facing financial choices.

This unfairness erodes trust in our social contract. The social contract is an implicit agreement between citizens and the state that gives the state its legitimacy. People work and pay their taxes; in return, they trust the state to step in if they fall on hard times. They trust the state to spend their taxes responsibly on their behalf, but the welfare system has become totally lopsided. Over half the households in this country now receive more from the state than they pay into it. Taxpayers are supporting a system larger than themselves. Scrapping the two-child limit will further exacerbate the imbalance.

The problem does not stop there. There is an entire shadow system working alongside universal credit. As I have mentioned, passported benefits are costing the taxpayer £10 billion every single year. They include healthy food cards, discounted broadband and free prescriptions. Together, they distort work incentives, leading to a cliff-edge denial of entitlements when a claimant comes off universal credit. Many parents want to work, but are better off remaining on benefits once they factor in their loss of eligibility for those extra entitlements. Yet again, they have been let down by a system that should be supporting them into work, not trapping them on benefits.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Can the shadow Minister remind the Committee of the weekly rate for the standard UC allowance?

[Rebecca Smith]

I am not particularly well today, so the right hon. Lady will forgive me if my memory is foggier than normal. That is why I am wearing my glasses, and it is why I am struggling not to cough throughout this debate. I am happy to have a conversation with her afterwards, but testing me on those sorts of things at this particular time is perhaps not the kindest thing to do.

The two-child limit is about basic fairness to working parents—the very people whose taxes fund our welfare system. They are already making tough decisions about the size of their own families, and we cannot exempt people on benefits from those hard choices. Scrapping the cap is a direct insult to the working families on whom this country relies.

The Government should remember the case that they once made for keeping the cap. When the Prime Minister suspended seven of his own MPs in 2024 for voting to scrap it, he did so on the basis that the policy was simply too expensive. He has now bowed to pressure from his Back Benchers, but nothing has changed—it is still unaffordable. Why are this Government preparing to spend billions by removing the two-child limit, when they cannot even get a grip on rising unemployment? We should be expanding real routes into work, not deepening incentives to remain on benefits.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

I speak in support of new clause 4, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), me and others, and I will try to be as brief as I can. Scrapping the two-child limit in full remains the single most impactful step we can take to reduce child poverty, and will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030. When combined with other measures in the child poverty strategy, more than 550,000 children will be lifted out of poverty by the end of the decade.

Some Members of this House have said, “How can the country justify this multibillion-pound spend?” It is around £3 billion a year, but child poverty costs the UK economy £39 billion annually—more than 10 times as much. That £39 billion reflects poorer health, lower educational attainment, increased pressure on public services and lost economic potential. Investing £3 billion to reduce a £39 billion problem is not reckless spending; it is a highly targeted, cost-effective investment with long-term returns. It is preventive policy at its very best.

Other Members have asked why taxpayers should support larger families. Well, the honest truth is that only a very small number of families have more than four children, and almost all are working hard to provide for them. The two-child limit has had no measurable impact on family planning and has not influenced fertility rates; it simply punishes children who are already here. Every child, regardless of birth order, deserves enough food, a safe home and a fair start in life. When children are supported to thrive, they do better in school, stay healthier and contribute more fully as adults, and that benefits all of us.

Those who argue that support should not go to families out of work should remember that six in 10 children affected by the two-child limit live in households where at least one parent works, and those families are taxpayers too. As my mum says, there but for the grace of God go I. A crisis can happen in an instant at any moment, and bereavement, illness, redundancy or family breakdown can push any household into temporary reliance on universal credit. A humane and flexible social security system exists to provide stability in those moments of crisis.

I urge all Members to support the passage of the Bill today, but it must be just the start and we must go further. Alongside scrapping the two-child limit, we have to address the wider benefit cap, which was introduced in 2013. It has bored down on the backs of many families like a rucksack full of lead. Organisations including the Child Poverty Action Group, the End Child Poverty Coalition, Save the Children UK, the Children’s Society, Barnardo’s, Action for Children and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have all highlighted the damaging impact of the overall cap. It places arbitrary ceilings on support, regardless of rent levels, local costs or family size. It disproportionately affects single parents—overwhelmingly women—and families in high-cost areas. It drives rent arrears, temporary accommodation and homelessness, and the evidence is clear that it does not meaningfully increase employment; it increases hardship.

If we are serious about tackling structural poverty, we cannot remove one barrier while leaving another firmly in place. Lifting the overall benefit cap would complement the removal of the two-child limit, ensuring that the gains we make today are not clawed back through arbitrary ceilings that fail to reflect real living costs. I applaud the Government for scrapping the two-child cap, which is the right thing to do, but I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances that his next step will be to look at lifting the benefit cap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

There could be no greater cause for a Government than to lift children out of poverty, which is why I very much welcome the removal of the two-child limit. However, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has reported that 141,000 children will not see the full benefit of the change and 50,000 children—the poorest of our children—will get no benefit whatsoever because of the benefit cap. We must therefore examine the impact of the benefit cap on these families and how it is holding those children back in poverty.

We must strain every sinew to address poverty, looking at issues such as the sanctions in the welfare system; the spare room subsidy, which the Government championed in the bedroom tax campaign; and many more. We know that the impact of growing up in poverty, especially on disabled children, results in a greater cost to the state than were their poverty and destitution to be addressed.

Poverty is a source of many adverse childhood experiences, causing multiple disadvantages to children and changing their life trajectories. My work looking into the intersection of child poverty and the 1,001 critical days shows the causal link. When I recently met with a director of midwifery and discussed poor maternal outcomes, she impressed on me how addressing the multiple indices for which poverty is at the root is the most significant step we could take.

Low birth rate, domestic violence, substance abuse and intergenerational disadvantage lead to setting a baby, a child and then an adult on to a negative trajectory. When it comes to lifting children out of poverty, we have to look at what is currently holding 4.5 million children in poverty—2 million in deep poverty and 1 million in destitution. The steps that the Government have made are to be celebrated, but there is much more to do.

Last week, I had the privilege of launching Kate Pickett’s new book “The Good Society”, so I have spent the last couple of weeks engrossed in statistics and research on the impact of poverty on our society, its causes and the solutions. If the Minister has not read it yet, I suggest he makes it his priority. I describe the book as a manifesto because I believe it echoes our values and provides the evidence base that the Minister needs regarding why holding children down in poverty is a moral ill, when the evidence says that removing the cap will save the Government substantially, and lead to better outcomes for those children in health, education and employment, in the justice system and in society.

The Government said that they were going to invest in a decade of renewal and so would reap the benefits within two terms of office were they to remove the benefit cap. The four new clauses before us call for an assessment, which the Government must be keen to make. If we do not, academics will drive out the data and present it to us.

Conservative Members are wrong on the evidence base. We need to look at the number of children who have been pushed into poverty over the last 14 years. Life expectancy in our developed country is now ranked 24th out of 38 in the OECD, and our infant mortality is now ranked at 29th. There is a causal link. Whether it is health outcomes, educational outcomes, the impact on families, or the justice system, the roots of the issues can be traced back to poverty in childhood. If we are serious about cutting the social security cost or the prison population cost to the Exchequer, our only path is to invest in ending child poverty and taking our ambition beyond that of the child poverty strategy launched by our Government.

The evidence from York, where we have introduced free school meals, is that lifting children out of poverty has significantly enhanced their health and education outcomes.

[Rebecca Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I am going to continue.

Risks including exploitation can be addressed if we put the right security around a child, so we must move all children out of poverty. A strong correlation exists between children in the justice system and poverty, with over half of children in secure accommodation being eligible for free school meals.

The evidence set out in “The Good Society” is powerful regarding why we need to lift children out of poverty. While we are rightly grateful for the steps that have been made, we have more to do. We know that 30% of disabled people live in poverty, and the risk of deep poverty is 60% higher in families with a disabled person. It is right, therefore, that in new clause 2 we seek to find deeper evidence. One reason to look at the benefit cap is that in my constituency we have among the highest costs of living in the country. The cost of housing is holding back families, as they do not have the resources to pay for the basics for their children. That is why I have worked with Citizens Advice in York, and said that I would raise these issues with the Minister.

As Pickett and Wilkinson point out in “The Spirit Level”, inequality is the root of each strand of social disadvantage, with the UK second worst in the world. Successive works of academics leading to two reports by Sir Michael Marmot have shown the impact on health outcomes, and whether in education, justice, housing or welfare, or indeed having any agency at all, we have a social and moral imperative to end the inequalities that widened following the 2008 economic crash.

I call on the Minister to look specifically at the benefit cap and to move those children forward and lift them out of poverty. We know that if we can turn the tables on their life outcomes, that can make such a significant difference.

If we are serious about our society gaining from the economic and social advantage of ending child poverty, we must look further, with a minimum income guarantee as a next step. We must also seriously consider a universal basic income so that no child experiences the deep and pernicious poverty that this place has for far too long held them in, suppressing their life chances and causing such harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

One of the new clauses touches specifically on disabled people. That new clause was not moved, but, as the hon. Lady knows, we are undertaking a review of personal independence payments, which I am co-chairing with others. We will see what the outcome of that is, but if there are to be changes in eligibility we will certainly set out details on the effects on the benefit cap and other things as those things progress.

I ask my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) to place an order on my behalf for Kate Pickett’s latest book, which I am very keen to have a look at.

New clause 2 is specifically about households in poverty with a disabled family member. I agree that monitoring and evaluation of that and other things is very important, but we should not have an assessment that sits in isolation from the impact assessment that I have described, which we are committed to delivering alongside the wider child poverty strategy.

New clause 3 asks that we review the impact of child poverty on destitution and wider social and economic outcomes. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for his support for the Bill. We have set out a second headline metric; we will measure deep material poverty in the child poverty strategy in the monitoring and evaluation framework. In that evaluation, we will track progress against two headline metrics. The first metric is relative low income—a metric embraced by David Cameron when he was the leader of the Conservative party but sadly not now recognised by the Conservatives. The second metric is deep material poverty, which will pick up on the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised.

[Rebecca Smith]

I have been wanting to mention this point throughout the debate, but I have not had the right opportunity. Obviously a large number of these new clauses look at reporting back. I appreciate that the child poverty strategy involves a lot of reporting back, but is the Minister aware that the Department for Education does not yet have the records of which local councils have taken up auto-enrolment for free school meals? While the child poverty strategy has introduced universal breakfast clubs, there is no matrix to be able to decipher whether auto-enrolment for free school meals is working. In some cases, such as in the county that I represent, that has meant a significant amount of money for those local authorities deliberately to try to tackle poverty. Will he look into tackling that?