logo
How much money could families get if Labour scraps two-child benefit cap?

How much money could families get if Labour scraps two-child benefit cap?

Independent2 days ago

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.
What is the two-child cap - and who loses out?
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.
How many children would it help lift out of poverty?
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.
What would it cost the government?
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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

HMRC is urging anyone with kids aged 15
HMRC is urging anyone with kids aged 15

Rhyl Journal

timean hour ago

  • Rhyl Journal

HMRC is urging anyone with kids aged 15

In a post on X, it said: "If you became a parent before May 2000, you may have Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) missing from your National Insurance record. This could mean you're missing out on State Pension payments." For someone with 13 missing years, who lives for another 20 years, it can be worth as much as £100,000 or more in State Pension payments. If you became a parent before May 2000, you may have Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) missing from your National Insurance record. This could mean you're missing out on State Pension payments. Check if you can apply for HRP below. ⬇️ Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) was given for full tax years (6 April to 5 April) between 1978 and 2010, if any of the following were true: National Insurance credits for parents and carers replaced HRP from 6 April 2010. Most people got HRP automatically if they were: If your partner claimed Child Benefit instead of you, you may be able to transfer HRP from a partner you lived with if they claimed Child Benefit while you both cared for a child under 16 and they do not need the HRP. If you reached State Pension age before 6 April 2008, you cannot transfer HRP. If you spent at least 35 hours a week caring for someone with a long-term illness or disability between 6 April 1978 and 5 April 2002, you may also be able to claim. They must have been getting one of the following benefits: The benefit must have been paid for 48 weeks of each tax year on or after 6 April 1988 or every week of each tax year before 6 April 1988. You do not need to apply for HRP if you were getting Carer's Allowance. You'll automatically get National Insurance credits and would not usually have needed HRP, but check - just to be sure. Recommended reading: You can also apply if, for a full tax year between 2003 and 2010, you were either: All of the following must also be true: You cannot get HRP for any complete tax year if you were a married woman or a widow and had chosen to pay reduced rate Class 1 National Insurance contributions as an employee (commonly known as the small stamp), or you had chosen not to pay Class 2 National Insurance contributions when self-employed

Starmer's Chagos deal reported to UN human rights chiefs
Starmer's Chagos deal reported to UN human rights chiefs

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Starmer's Chagos deal reported to UN human rights chiefs

Sir Keir Starmer's Chagos deal has been reported to UN human rights chiefs over claims it ignores native islanders' desire to return to their homeland. Campaigners have asked the UN's human rights committee in Geneva to examine the deal, under which the UK will give up the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and rent back a military base there. If successful, the request could result in a UN ruling in direct contradiction to the body's International Court of Justice, which said in 2019 that the UK should hand over the islands to Mauritius. Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe, who are British citizens but native to the islands, launched an eleventh-hour bid to stop the deal last month, resulting in a dramatic injunction from the High Court in the middle of the night. But their legal challenge was rejected the next day, and the deal went ahead, including a commitment for the UK to pay Mauritius up to £30 billion over the next 99 years. Ms Dugasse and Ms Pompe are now taking their fight to the UN by writing to the committee asking for an advisory opinion that the UK should not sign the deal over human rights concerns. They allege the deal breaches five articles of the UN's international covenant on civil and political rights, including the right to self-determination, freedom of movement and right to return, and minority rights. The deal agreed by Sir Keir has been opposed by MPs from the Conservative and Reform parties, and Tory peers have since launched a campaign to block the deal from the House of Lords. But the Government insists that the deal is vital for national security and will allow the military base on the archipelago's biggest island, Diego Garcia, to continue to operate legally. It follows years of negotiations between Britain and Mauritius, which claims it should have been given sovereignty over the islands when it was given independence from the UK in 1968. The population of the islands, between 1,400 and 1,700 people, was removed in the late 60s and early 70s to make way for the military base. The displaced Chagossians claim that they were not consulted before the Starmer deal was signed, and complain that under the terms agreed between the UK and Mauritius, they will not be allowed to return to Diego Garcia. Ms Pompe said: 'The fight is not over. There is nothing in that treaty for Chagossians and we will fight.' The UN does not have the power to block the deal, but the committee could issue an advisory opinion that would inform Downing Street it could be in breach of international human rights obligations if it proceeds. The campaigners told the committee in a letter, seen by The Telegraph, that the deal 'would amount to a definitive and irreversible endorsement of a continuing violation originally initiated by the colonial power'. It goes on: 'By excluding the Chagossian people from the process and de facto accepting their permanent displacement, the agreement entrenches the denial of their right to return and the effective exercise of their cultural, spiritual rights.' Toby Noskwith, who coordinated last month's legal action, said: 'I pity the poor souls in the No10 press office who are being ordered to justify Keir Starmer's betrayal of the Chagossian people. 'We're looking forward to the explanation of why the UN human rights committee doesn't matter. Not pausing the Chagos deal until the Committee rules is indefensible.'

BREAKING NEWS Woman is charged with murder after Polish mother's body was found buried in garden 15 years after she vanished
BREAKING NEWS Woman is charged with murder after Polish mother's body was found buried in garden 15 years after she vanished

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

BREAKING NEWS Woman is charged with murder after Polish mother's body was found buried in garden 15 years after she vanished

A woman has been charged after the body of Polish mother, Izabela Zablocka, was uncovered by police 15 years after she vanished. Anna Podedworna, 39, has been charged with murder, preventing a lawful and decent burial and perverting the course of justice. It comes after the body of Izabela Zablocka, 30, was found in a garden in Derby on June 1 of this year, having been missing for over a decade. Izabela, who moved to Britain in 2009, lived on Princes Street and worked at the former Cranberry Foods Turkey and Chicken Factory in nearby Scropton. She last made contact with her family in Poland on August 28, 2010 and despite their efforts to trace her, she was never found. Samanatha Shallow, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor in the East Midlands, said: 'Following a review of the evidence provided by Derbyshire Constabulary, we have authorised criminal charges in relation to the death of Izabela Zablocka 'Ms Zablocka went missing in August 2010, when she was aged 30. Her body was recovered in Derby on 1 June 2025. 'Anna Podedworna, 39, from Derby, has been charged with her murder. She has also been charged with preventing a lawful and decent burial and perverting the course of justice. 'She will appear at Derby Magistrates' Court on Friday, 6 June 2025. 'Our thoughts remain with the family of Ms Zablocka at this time. 'The Crown Prosecution Service reminds all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant are active and that she has the right to a fair trial. 'It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store