How much money could families get if Labour scraps two-child benefit cap?
Scrapping the two-child benefit cap could lift up to 470,000 children out of poverty, according to the latest estimates, by allowing low-income families to claim an extra £3,513 per year in universal credit for every extra child.
After months of firm support for maintaining the limit, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has appeared to leave the door open to the possibility of lifting the limit, put in place by the Conservative government in 2017.
'We'll look at all options of driving down child poverty,' Sir Keir said last week, in response to questions on whether he would scrap it.
It came after mounting pressure from his own MPs and Reform leader Nigel Farage, who committed to scrapping the limit if he were PM.
There are 1.2 million families with three or more children in the UK and around 370,000 of these are households on universal credit (UC).
Families receiving UC - who are on low or no income - receive an extra £339 each month for their first child born before 2017, and £292.81 for first or second children born after 2017. This amounts to £7,581 per year for families with two children.
But in most cases, parents are unable to claim UC benefits for any further children. There are rare exemptions, for example, in the case of twins, or adopted children.
Most families can still claim general child benefit payments for more than two children, which amounts to £897 per child per year.
But if the government scrapped the two-child benefit cap, families on UC could claim a further £3,513 per year for every extra child. However, there is an upper limit to how much families can claim in benefits with an overall cap of £22,020 a year, or £25,323 for households in London.
The number of children living in poor households has been steadily increasing over the past decade, with 4.5 million children - around 1 in 3 - now living in poverty.
Poverty can be defined in several ways but the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) uses 'relative low income' as a marker, referring to people in households which earn below 60 per cent of the median income of £36,700 in 2024, or £14,680.
Some of these children are going without essentials, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, such as food, heating, clothing or basic toiletries.
Removing the two-child benefit cap could lift 350,000 out of poverty, according to analysis from researchers at the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG).
A further 700,000 children could see their lives improved with the extra cash, their research has found.
Meanwhile, the Resolution Foundation has estimated that around 470,000 children could be taken out of poverty by lifting the cap, or 280,000 if the limit was extended to three children.
Since the Labour government came into power in July last year, some 37,000 more children have been pushed into poverty by the two-child limit, according to CPAG estimates.
'No road to better living standards, economic growth and wider opportunities starts with record child poverty. The policy must go - and sooner rather than later,' said CPAG's CEO Alison Garnham.
Since the cap applies to families receiving UC, the children affected are in low-income households. And 6 in 10 families affected by the two-child limit have at least one parent in work, CPAG found.
The estimated cost of removing the two-child limit, extending it to three children, or removing a household cap varies.
Getting rid of the cap could cost the government £3.5bn in 2029/30, according to estimates from think tank the Resolution Foundation earlier this year. Meanwhile, CPAG suggests that the move would cost £2bn.
The Independent's own calculations suggest that extending the limit to three children could cost at least £1.3 bn a year; assuming that 370,000 households claim an extra £3,513 of UC each year.
Consecutive governments have refused to commit to removing the cap, despite its unpopularity with voters.
Last year, Sir Keir enforced the whip on seven Labour MPs who voted against their party to oppose the two-child benefit cap.
The current Labour government had consistently maintained that they would not take action to remove the cap, due to tight resources in the budget; yet Sir Keir's statements last week appeared to open up the possibility of a U-turn.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learnt. New figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/25. The money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK. The Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to media. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance overseas. But under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their arrival. According to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Labour promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year period. But a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. Asylum accommodation costs set to triple, says watchdog Asylum hotel companies vow to hand back some profits On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether." The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are housed. But Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its budgets. The scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the world. Those cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £9bn. Such was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul." Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced. "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken." A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026." Is the government meeting its pledges on illegal immigration and asylum?
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Reform UK struggles to find friends to share council power
Reform UK's success in the recent local elections has propelled many councillors with limited or no political experience into council chambers across England. While Reform UK's rise was the big story of those elections, almost half of the councils up for grabs were not won outright by any single party. That means many of those newbie councillors are now navigating so-called hung councils, where parties with little in common often work together to get the business of local government done. But so far, it hasn't panned out that way for Reform UK, which isn't involved in any formal coalitions, pacts or deals in areas where there were local elections this year. This was despite rampant speculation about Reform-Conservative coalitions ahead of the polls, with party leaders Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage not ruling out council deals. So, what's going on? In some places - Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Leicestershire - Reform UK has enough councillors to form minority administrations and is attempting to govern alone. In other areas where coalitions were possible, Reform UK has either shunned co-operation or vice versa. Where Reform UK has explored potential partnerships locally, its policies have been viewed with suspicion by the established parties. In Cornwall, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives refused to work with Reform UK, even though it was the biggest party and had won the most seats. Instead, the Lib Dems teamed up with independent councillors to run Cornwall Council as a minority administration. That infuriated Reform UK's group leader in Cornwall, Rob Parsonage, who branded the coalition deal "undemocratic" and "a total stitch-up". Did other parties contrive to exclude Reform UK? The newly minted Lib Dem council leader, Leigh Frost, does not think so. "The reality is our core values at heart of it just stand for two very different things and it makes working together incompatible," Frost told the BBC. "And then Reform was given two weeks to try to form an administration and chose not to." Frost said Reform UK's Cornwall candidates mainly campaigned on immigration. This was echoed in conversations with other local party leaders across the country. The BBC was told Reform's candidates had little local policy to offer and mostly focused on national issues, such as stopping small boats crossing the English Channel. Slashing "wasteful spending" by councils, like Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) in the US, was also a common campaign theme. In Worcestershire, where Reform won the most seats but fell short of a majority, the party's supposed lack of local policy was a major sticking point for the Conservatives. "They haven't got a local prospectus and that was part of the problem," said Adam Kent, Tory group leader on Worcestershire County Council. "They didn't stand on any local issues. It was on national politics. How can you go into coalition with somebody if you don't even know what they stand for?" Joanne Monk, the Reform UK council leader in the county, said she only had "a brief couple of chats" with other party leaders but was uncompromising on coalitions. "I'm damned sure we're not on the same wavelength," she said. She followed the lead of Farage, who ruled out formal coalitions at council level but said "in the interests of local people we'll do deals", in comments ahead of the local elections. In Worcestershire, Reform UK's minority administration may need to do deals to pass key decisions and avoid other parties banding together to veto their plans. Recognising this, she acknowledged other parties were "going to have to work with us at some point". In Northumberland, the Conservatives retained their position as the largest party and gave the impression they were willing to entertain coalition talks with Reform UK, which gained 23 seats. "I said I would work with anyone and my door is open," said Conservative council leader Glen Sanderson. "But Reform the next day put out a press release saying the price for working with the Conservatives would be extremely high. So on that basis, I assumed that was the door closed on me." No talks were held and the Conservatives formed a minority administration. Weeks had passed after the local elections before Mark Peart was voted in as Reform UK's local group leader in the county. As a result, he wasn't in a position to talk to anybody. "Everything had already been agreed," Peart said. "It was too late." Reform UK sources admitted the party was caught a bit flat-footed here and elsewhere as many of its new councillors got the grips with their new jobs in the weeks following the local elections. A support network for those councillors, in the form of training sessions and a local branch system, is being developed by the party. But this week Zia Yusuf, one of the key architects behind that professionalisation drive and the Doge cost-cutting initiative, resigned as party chairman, leaving a gap in the party's leadership. Reform UK's deputy leader, Richard Tice, said the party's success at the local elections "was partly because of the significant efforts and improvements to the infrastructure of the party" spearheaded by Yusuf. Though Yusuf is gone, the party has considerably strengthened its foundations at local level, after gaining 677 new councillors and two mayors. A Reform UK source said party bosses will be keeping an eye out for stand-out councillors who could go on to become parliamentary candidates before the general election. They said in areas where Reform UK runs councils as a minority administration, it's going to take some compromise with other parties and independents to pass budgets and key policies. In the messy world of town halls and council chambers, that could be a tough apprenticeship. Reform UK prepares for real power on a council it now dominates Sir John Curtice: The map that shows Reform's triumph was much more than a protest vote Reform UK makes big gains in English local elections
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Carney launches ‘One Canadian Economy' Act to unify trade, approvals
-- Prime Minister Mark Carney unveiled sweeping legislation Friday aimed at accelerating the approval of infrastructure projects and removing long-standing internal trade barriers, part of a broader effort to boost Canada's economic potential amid mounting global uncertainty. The One Canadian Economy Act, a centerpiece of the Carney government's pro-growth agenda, seeks to consolidate regulatory processes and create a unified domestic market across the national landscape. 'Canada's a country that used to build big things,' Carney said at a press conference. 'But in recent decades it's become too difficult to build in this country.' To address these concerns, the bill would cut federal project approval times from five years to two by creating a one-stop permitting office and applying a 'one-project, one-review' standard to infrastructure proposals. Projects deemed 'nation-building' by federal cabinet, such as railways, ports, pipelines, and transmission lines, would undergo streamlined assessments focused not on justification, but implementation. These proposals must satisfy at least some of five criteria, including economic benefit, Indigenous engagement, and contributions to climate goals, though officials stress these are considerations rather than strict thresholds. The new approach was partially galvanized by concerns over regulatory paralysis that has slowed Canada's ability to bring natural resources to global markets. 'When federal agencies have examined a new project, their immediate question has been: Why?' Carney said Friday. 'With this bill, we will instead ask ourselves: How?' The legislation also tackles internal trade barriers, which economists estimate cost tens of billions of dollars in lost productivity and economic output annually. A major provision of the bill would recognize provincial standards for goods, services and labor certification as meeting the federal benchmark, though actual interprovincial mobility will still require the cooperation of provincial governments. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has expressed skepticism over the bill's broader impact, calling the internal trade components 'a small step.' 'It's baby steps when we needed a giant leap,' Poilievre said Friday, while suggesting provinces be offered cash incentives to dismantle remaining trade barriers. While some provinces have already commenced bilateral trade agreements, others remain hesitant. The federal government says its own contributions include the elimination of all exemptions to the Canadian Free Trade Agreement by July 1, with the broader hope that harmonization efforts will follow across jurisdictions. Related articles Carney launches 'One Canadian Economy' Act to unify trade, approvals US job growth in May tops forecasts, but Macquarie warns cracks are emerging Fed's Harker says rate cuts this year still possible
