Labour Minister Refuses 5 Times To Say If She Wants To Scrap Two-Child Benefit Cap
A Labour minister refused five times to say whether she was personally in favour of scrapping the two-child benefit cap.
Catherine McKinnell was quizzed on LBC as Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves ponder whether to end the Tory-era policy.
The prime minister has already announced a U-turn on the deeply unpopular decision to take winter fuel payments off 10 million pensioners.
It is understood that ending the two-child cap could form part of the government's child poverty strategy, which is being announced in the summer.
McKinnell, who is an education minister, was asked by LBC presenter Nick Ferrari: 'Would you support conceding ground on the two-child benefit cap?'
The minister replied: 'I'm working really hard along with many other ministers across departments to really develop our child poverty taskforce strategy. There's a whole raft of measures that we need to look at, from cost of living, cost of energy, cost of water ...'
Ferrari then interrupted her to ask: 'But would you keep the child benefit cap is my question.'
McKinnell said she was 'not going to speculate', prompting the presenter to ask again: 'Which way do you feel about it?'
The minister said: 'I'm absolutely determined to tackle child poverty.'
After Ferrari asked about lifting the cap again, she said: 'I've always said that I think it's important that we look in the round at what is driving child poverty.'
Asking a fifth time, Ferrari said: 'But would you keep the cap?'
Avoiding the question again, McKinnell said: 'We haven't made a decision. We're coming up with a strategy as to how we drive down child poverty. Whatever achieves that, I will support.'
'Would you keep the two child benefit cap? That's my question.'School Standards Minister Catherine McKinnell is unable to answer @NickFerrariLBC's query - again. pic.twitter.com/zIs7xVv0rA
— LBC (@LBC) May 30, 2025
Robert Jenrick Suggests Nigel Farage Is On Drugs For Wanting To Scrap Two-Child Benefit Cap
Cabinet Minister Confirms That Labour Wants To Scrap The Two-Child Benefit Cap
Is Starmer Really Looking To Lift The Two-Child Benefit Cap? Here's What We Know
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump administration revokes guidance requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortions
Biden argued that hospitals — including states with near-total bans — needed to provide emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. That law requires emergency rooms that receive Medicare dollars to provide an exam and stabilizing treatment for all patients. Nearly all emergency rooms in the U.S. rely on Medicare funds. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which investigates hospitals that are not in compliance, said in a statement on Tuesday that it was rescinding the Biden-era guidance. The agency, however, will continue to enforce the law, 'including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.' Advertisement But CMS added that it would also 'rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions.' The Biden administration sued Idaho over its abortion law that initially only allowed abortions to save the life of the mother. The federal government had argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last year that Idaho's law was in conflict with the federal law, which requires stabilizing treatment that prevents a patient's condition from worsening. Advertisement The U.S. Supreme Court issued a procedural ruling in the case last year that left key questions unanswered about whether doctors in abortion ban states can terminate pregnancies when a woman is at risk of serious infection, organ loss or hemorrhage.
Los Angeles Times
19 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump administration revokes guidance requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortions
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it would revoke guidance to the nation's hospitals that directed them to provide emergency abortions to women when they are necessary to stabilize their medical condition. That guidance was issued to hospitals in 2022, weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court upended national abortion rights in the U.S. It was an effort by the Biden administration to preserve abortion access for extreme cases in which women were experiencing medical emergencies and needed an abortion to prevent organ loss or severe hemorrhaging, among other serious complications. An Associated Press investigation last year found that, even with that guidance, dozens of pregnant women were being turned away from emergency rooms, including some who needed emergency abortions. Biden argued that hospitals — including states with near-total bans — needed to provide emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. That law requires emergency rooms that receive Medicare dollars to provide an exam and stabilizing treatment for all patients. Nearly all emergency rooms in the U.S. rely on Medicare funds. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which investigates hospitals that are not in compliance, said in a statement Tuesday that it was rescinding the Biden-era guidance. The agency, however, will continue to enforce the law, 'including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.' But CMS added that it would also 'rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions.' The Biden administration sued Idaho over its abortion law that initially only allowed abortions to save the life of the mother. The federal government had argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last year that Idaho's law was in conflict with the federal law, which requires stabilizing treatment that prevents a patient's condition from worsening. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a procedural ruling in the case last year that left key questions unanswered about whether doctors in abortion-ban states can terminate pregnancies when a woman is at risk of serious infection, organ loss or hemorrhage. Seitz writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration revokes guidance requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortions
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it would revoke guidance to the nation's hospitals that directed them to provide emergency abortions to women when they are necessary to stabilize their medical condition. That guidance was issued to hospitals in 2022, weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court upended national abortion rights in the U.S. It was an effort by the Biden administration to preserve abortion access for extreme cases in which women were experiencing medical emergencies and needed an abortion to prevent organ loss or severe hemorrhaging, among other serious complications. An Associated Press investigation last year found that, even with that guidance, dozens of pregnant women were being turned away from emergency rooms, including some who needed emergency abortions. Biden argued that hospitals — including states with near-total bans — needed to provide emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. That law requires emergency rooms that receive Medicare dollars to provide an exam and stabilizing treatment for all patients. Nearly all emergency rooms in the U.S. rely on Medicare funds. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which investigates hospitals that are not in compliance, said in a statement on Tuesday that it was rescinding the Biden-era guidance. The agency, however, will continue to enforce the law, 'including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.' But CMS added that it would also 'rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions.' The Biden administration sued Idaho over its abortion law that initially only allowed abortions to save the life of the mother. The federal government had argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last year that Idaho's law was in conflict with the federal law, which requires stabilizing treatment that prevents a patient's condition from worsening. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a procedural ruling in the case last year that left key questions unanswered about whether doctors in abortion ban states can terminate pregnancies when a woman is at risk of serious infection, organ loss or hemorrhage.
