Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the wonderful maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Antrobus, which came from both the heart and the head—there is no better combination. As she said, she comes to your Lordships’ House with a background that spans practice and theory, service and scholarship. She is too modest to say just how eminent her record has been in all those spheres. Her speech demonstrates how valuable her contribution will be to the work of this House, at a time when conflict is engulfing so much of the world. I very much look forward to the wisdom that she will bring to debates on these matters. My noble friend was also able to bring her personal experience of growing up in a single-parent family to bear on the subject of today’s debate. In doing so, she demonstrated the value of the knowledge that comes from lived experience—something that has helped to shape the Government’s child poverty strategy. She brought home very powerfully why it is wrong to suggest that the money spent on the abolition of the two-child limit would be better spent on defence, as the leader of the Opposition said recently. My noble friend’s speech made it clear how the security of the realm and the security of individuals in poverty are intertwined. This brings me to the Bill. Let us rejoice as we read the death rites on what one eminent social policy professor described as the “worst social policy ever”. As we have heard, what UNICEF UK describes as a “transformative” measure will reduce both the numbers of children in poverty and the depths of poverty. As one mother responded, “Finally all my children will be seen as equals”. I pay tribute to those in government and in civil society who made sure it happened. The Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner recently observed that, “without this step, it would be difficult to imagine an effective overall approach to combating child poverty. It is an important investment in the rights and wellbeing of children”. He criticised the stigmatising preconceptions about people receiving social security that have marked some political and media reactions to the Bill. These reactions have suggested that somehow spending money on lifting children out of poverty is illegitimate—part of what is dismissed by the Opposition as the “ballooning benefits bill”. This ignores an estimated £50 billion a year hacked off that bill as a result of Tory cuts and restrictions, while official figures show that spending on working-age benefits as a percentage of GDP has not increased and is not projected to increase. Arguments about the costs of the Bill also ignore, as we have heard, the cost of not acting, in terms of the impact of poverty on public services—notably, health, education and children’s care—and on future employment prospects. We are talking about preventive spending and investment in our children. It is all too easy for the Opposition to hide their contribution to the worsening of child poverty behind the argument that the answer lies in paid work, full stop. This is despite the fact that, as we have heard, three-fifths of those hurt by the two-child limit have a parent in work and that an estimated 70% of the additional funding will go to that group. More fundamentally, there is a widespread consensus built on academic analysis that removal of the two-child limit is the one most effective measure open to the Government to reduce child poverty at a stroke. To quote CASE at the LSE, “changes in parental employment, whilst important, will never deliver change to child poverty rates on the scale we need to see. We can only get significant and lasting reductions in child poverty by investing in our social security system. There really is no other way”. Research by Public First suggests that, when provided with information about the cost-effectiveness of abolition of the limit in reducing child poverty, voters’ support for the measure increases significantly. The same is true of the overall benefit cap. I am afraid that, here, I have to introduce a note of dissent, which I am sure will not surprise the Minister. It echoes the powerful maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Teather. The Bill’s impact assessment estimates that in 2029-30 around 50,000 households will not gain and 10,000 will only partially gain because of the cap. I find it depressing that the same arguments are used about needing the cap to ensure work incentives as under the previous Government. Yes, the cap may push some parents into paid work, but by driving parents into deep poverty it creates stress and anxiety about making ends meet that makes them less effective jobseekers. This is not, as Ministers assert, in the best interests of children. Indeed, I remind my noble friend that, when the cap was introduced, the official Opposition supported the removal of child benefit from the cap on the grounds that it is received by equivalent working families and that, therefore, in order to create a more level playing field, it should not be included in the cap. Could this be looked at again, please, from the perspective of the best interests of children? I also urge that, when the threshold limits are reviewed next year, a decision is made to uprate them annually in line with the UC standard allowance, so that we do not see more families pushed into deep poverty by the cap each year. As it is, they have been uprated only once since 2016, when they were cut. They are now worth £5,409 less in London and £4,702 elsewhere as a result. Two other concerns have been raised about some families who will not benefit or fully benefit from the Bill. The first, raised by CPAG, of which I am honorary president, and Advice NI, relates to some families who, having migrated to UC through the managed migration process, may lose some of their transitional protection. The other, raised by Resolve Poverty, concerns families who may lose as a result of the knock-on effect on their council tax reduction. I do not think that either is mentioned in the impact assessment and I wonder whether my noble friend can throw any light on the numbers likely to be involved. To return to the good news, the Bill will, in the words of a mother of four quoted by CPAG, “make a world of difference”. As the cornerstone of the first UK-wide child poverty strategy since 2010, it symbolises what a Labour Government can do to build a good society.