Calls to scrap two-child benefit cap over child poverty link
At least one in four children is in poverty in two-thirds of the UK's constituencies, the annual analysis from Loughborough University for the End Child Poverty Coalition found.
'Bold action' is needed, the campaign said ahead of Chancellor Rachel Reeves's spending review this month, as they called for the cap to be scrapped as soon as possible.
The policy means parents only receive support for up to two children through the universal credit system.
Analysis of the child poverty rate and the proportion of children affected by the two-child limit found that the two are 'extremely highly correlated', adding to evidence that the cap is a 'major driver of child poverty across the UK'.
In the North East, West Midlands and Wales, around nine out of 10 constituencies were found to have a child poverty rate higher than one in four.
Birmingham Ladywood, Dewsbury and Batley and Bradford West were among those with the highest rates.
Sir Keir Starmer and the Chancellor are under pressure to respond to mounting calls for the two-child benefit cap to be axed at a cost of around £3.5 billion.
Ministers have reportedly been considering scrapping it as part of their child poverty strategy, which was due to be published in the spring but is now set to come out in the autumn so it can be aligned with the Chancellor's budget.
Dan Paskins, vice-chairman of the End Child Poverty Coalition, said the data presents a 'bleak picture of life' for the UK's children.
'A record number are now in poverty and this is under the noses of our MPs, particularly Cabinet members. 80% of Keir Starmer's Cabinet represent constituencies with higher-than-average child poverty rates.
'The time for action is now, and the Comprehensive Spending Review and forthcoming child poverty strategy should involve bold action.
'Due to the analysis's finding (of) a strong correlation between child poverty rates in local areas and the number of children impacted by the two-child limit to universal credit, it is essential this policy is scrapped as soon as possible.'
A Government spokesperson said: 'This Government is determined to bring down child poverty.
'We've already expanded free breakfast clubs, introduced a cap on the cost of school uniforms, increased the national minimum wage for those on the lowest incomes, uprated benefits in April and supported 700,000 of the poorest families by introducing a fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions.
'We will publish an ambitious child poverty strategy later this year to ensure we deliver fully-funded measures that tackle the structural and root causes of child poverty across the country.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Fund Winter Fuel Payments with MP expenses cut says petition
The petition was started by Yvonne Keegan, who calls for the benefit to be reinstated: "I know first hand the importance of Winter Fuel Payment - it's a lifeline to pensioners during the harsh winter months. Their heating bills can skyrocket, and they end up struggling, trying desperately to keep themselves warm. "Meanwhile, our politicians are living comfortably with expenses that would be considered extravagant by most standards. We believe that our politicians – who have a stable income, can afford to pay their heating bills and do not need taxpayer-funded expenses to support this aspect of their lifestyle." Once a petition reaches 10,000 signatures, the Government responds, and if 100,000 people sign, a debate in Parliament is considered. This petition currently has 110,421 signatures. Signatures can still be added here. How much do MPs get paid? MPs' basic salary rose 2.8% to £93,904 from April, after Parliament's expenses watchdog linked it to wider proposals for the public sector. They can also claim expenses including: Office expenses Office running costs Staffing costs Travel for staff Centrally purchased stationery Postage costs Central IT costs Communications allowance They also receive allowances towards having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency. MPs can claim their utility bills, including gas, electricity, other fuel and water bills, on expenses at a single property, either in London or their constituency. This is only available to those who aren't MPs in London, or don't occupy 'grace and favour' accommodation in London. There is no upper limit on how much MPs can claim back on heating and fuel costs. Which pensioners will receive Winter Fuel payments after the changes? The Government has said more pensioners will receive winter fuel payments, but payments will not be universal. Chancellor Rachel Reeves told reporters that 'more people will get winter fuel payment this winter', adding that further details will be announced 'as soon as we possibly can'. She said: 'People should be in no doubt that the means test will increase and more people will get winter fuel payment this winter.' My instant response to Winter Fuel Payment news & key message to the Chancellor (I heard while walking to the office, so pls forgive the fact it was done there and then for speed) — Martin Lewis (@MartinSLewis) June 4, 2025 Pensions minister Torsten Bell told MPs that, while more pensioners will be eligible, there is no prospect of returning to universal winter fuel payments. Speaking to the Work and Pensions Committee, Mr Bell said: 'Directly on your question of is there any prospect of a universal winter fuel payment, the answer is no, the principle I think most people, 95% of people, agree, that it's not a good idea that we have a system paying a few hundreds of pounds to millionaires, and so we're not going to be continuing with that. 'But we will be looking at making more pensioners eligible.' (Image: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire) The decision to means-test the previously universal payment was one of the first announcements by Chancellor Rachel Reeves after Labour's landslide election victory last year, and it has been widely blamed for the party's collapse in support. The Government has insisted the policy was necessary to help stabilise the public finances, allowing the improvements in the economic picture which Sir Keir said could result in the partial reversal of the measure. Pension Credit is currently the primary benefit by which pensioners can receive the winter fuel payment. The credit tops up incomes for poorer pensioners and acts as a gateway to additional support, including the winter fuel payment. Recommended reading: What were the cuts to winter fuel payments, and who currently receives them? On July 29 2024, the Government announced that from winter 2024, winter fuel payments would be dependent on receiving another means-tested benefit, as part of measures to fill a 'black hole' in the public finances. This meant the number of pensioners receiving the payment was reduced by around 10 million, from 11.4 million to 1.5 million. Asked what groups who are currently missing out on winter fuel payments he would like to include again, if possible, Mr Bell told the committee: 'We are committed to the principle that there should be some means-testing and that those on the highest incomes shouldn't be receiving winter fuel payments in the context of wider decisions we have to make – and fairness is an important part of that. 'You can then take from that that my priority is those who are on lower incomes but have missed out.'
New Statesman
4 hours ago
- New Statesman
Rachel Reeves wants to level up your commute. Does she have the money?
'Biggest ever investment in city region local transport as Chancellor vows the 'Renewal of Britain',' trumpeted a government press release on 4 June. It was one of those headlines that feels like it should come with a '[citation needed]' tag. Have they accounted for inflation? When they say 'city region', are they gerrymandering to only count places officially designated by this relatively recent term? The total cash adds up to £15.6bn. There's a risk of apples and oranges here; yet it seems at least worth noting that London's Elizabeth Line cost £18.8bn. But let's hold the cynicism for the moment, because all this looks suspiciously like that rarest thing: good news from Rachel Reeves. The announcement more than doubles the real terms capital funding for nine city regions from 2027/28 to 2031/32: £2.4bn for the West Midlands, £2.5bn for Greater Manchester and so on. The list of 'projects likely to be taken forward by mayors' that accompanies it includes a dizzying number of potential schemes: an eastern extension of the Midlands Metro; new tram stops and a potential Stockport extension for Manchester's Metrolink; new rolling stock and station upgrades on the Sheffield Supertram; and so on. All this is cheering, even if you're not the sort of person who can while away a happy hour looking at public transport maps of cities you've never even visited, because there are reasons to think poor transport is one cause of Britain's economic malaise. Productivity, after all, tends to correlate with city size, and poor connectivity means that our cities are functionally a lot smaller than they look: the transport and economy writer Tom Forth has shown that traffic congestion means that Birmingham functionally shrinks by half in rush hour. It's not just that cities with good public transport are nicer, though they are: it's that, by linking employers with a larger pool of potential employees, they're often more prosperous. It's good news for political reasons, too. So much of what this government is doing – including, probably, the bulk of next week's spending review – feels unnervingly like presiding over decline. This isn't that. It has been pitched as a move towards rewriting the 'Green Book', the guidance the Treasury uses to value potential spending commitments – and which tends, because of London's prosperity and sheer size, to funnel money to the south-east. By allocating money to other regions, between them containing nearly 18 million people – over a third of England's population outside London – it's a baby step towards the levelling up the last government promised but failed to deliver. Not everyone is convinced: plenty warn this all has unnerving parallels with Rishi Sunak's proposals for 'Network North', which was neither a network nor really about the north. (The list of projects included stretched, hilariously, to Plymouth.) But I think that's too kind to Sunak and unfair on Reeves: there is a difference between a rapidly assembled list of unfunded projects press-released to counteract some bad headlines about the dismemberment of HS2 and an actual funding announcement by a sitting Chancellor. Will it be truly transformative? There appear to be a few shortcomings. For example, absent from the announcement is the long-awaited and repeatedly cancelled rebuild of Manchester Piccadilly station, which has long acted as a bottleneck for rail services across the north. Another absence is HS2 itself, which (sing along if you know the tune) would increase capacity on local services by getting fast trains out of the way. These would do wonders for multiple city regions – but they are excluded, presumably either because they are not 'city region' projects but strategic rail ones, or because they just cost too much. The last critique concerns the politics. It's great to see a government breaking with tradition and increasing, rather than slashing, capital funding – but the reason most chancellors tend to cut is because these projects take so long to show any benefits. The suggested timeline for the proposed West Yorkshire Mass Transit is both illustrative and absurd: 'spades in the ground' by 2028, the first services in the mid 2030s. Until then, it won't transform the economy, and may not help much at the next election – it could, in fact, do the opposite, by mobilising opponents who fear disruption to roads. It's good to see a chancellor invest. Let's hope she doesn't regret it. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See more: Inside No 10's new dysfunction] Related
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
What can Reform do to shift the idea it is the ‘Nigel Party'?
Labour breathed a huge sigh of relief after a surprise victory in the Scottish parliament by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. Senior Scottish Labour figures had feared coming second or even third behind Reform UK; for once, it wasn't expectation management. Labour insiders admit privately the tight three-horse race confirms that Reform UK is on the map in Scotland, previously hostile territory for Nigel Farage. 'Something is up when you knock on doors in Scotland and get Reform talking points thrown at you,' one minister told me. Reform's advance will make Labour's task of ousting the SNP in next May's Scottish parliament elections much harder. After Keir Starmer's landslide last year, when Labour won 37 of Scotland's 57 seats, the party had high hopes of ending SNP rule north of the border after 19 years. But an unpopular government at Westminster has dragged Labour down; it has lost one in six of its 2024 Scottish voters to Farage's party. Reform is also on course to do well in next May's elections to the Welsh parliament, where Labour has called the shots since devolution in 1998. Although Reform had hoped to come at least second in Hamilton, it can still claim momentum in Scotland. A much bigger setback for Farage than its third place was the resignation of Zia Yusuf as party chair. After Reform's sweeping gains in last month's local elections in England and the Runcorn parliamentary by-election, Farage said: 'We would not have done […] what we did without him.' Now, Farage is dismissing Yusuf's claim to be responsible for Reform's meteoric rise. Tough game, politics. The energetic, telegenic Yusuf had made a good start in professionalising Reform – something Farage spectacularly failed to do as leader of Ukip and the Brexit Party. As a Muslim, Yusuf gave Reform cover against allegations of racism, but received nasty abuse on social media from some Reform supporters. Yusuf had plans to attract Muslim voters and that is why he was angered by Reform MP Sarah Pochin's call for a ban on the burqa. However, there were wider reasons for his departure. He felt sidelined after being put in charge of the Elon Musk-style Doge unit in councils run by Reform. The 38-year-old multi-millionaire entrepreneur didn't suffer fools gladly, and his abrasive style upset some at Reform's Millbank Tower headquarters (Labour's base when it won its 1997 landslide). He was blamed by critics for escalating the feud with former Reform MP Rupert Lowe. They complained that Yusuf was not a team player – a bit rich when that label applies to Farage in spades. The departure is a reminder of Farage's achilles heel: he falls out with senior figures in every party or campaign he is involved in. The loss of Yusuf will make it harder to make the Doge exercise work. This matters because the party needs to make its claim credible that vast savings can be made from cutting waste to be a contender for power. Crucially, Farage cannot be a one-man band – the 'Nigel Party', as it's dubbed at Westminster. He gives the impression of wanting to be the only tall poppy, but will need a cabinet-in-waiting to convince voters his party could run the country. However, other parties should not get carried away with Farage's woes. Voters are less bothered about Reform infighting than the Westminster village. Conservative claims that Reform is imploding are wishful thinking, and their humiliating fourth place in Hamilton illustrates their dire position. Reform remains a real threat to Keir Starmer's hopes of a second term. Labour is banking on turning the next election into a presidential contest between Starmer and Farage. Labour insiders call it a 'nosepeg' strategy: they hope left-of-centre voters who have given up on Labour after its poor first year will hold their nose and back Starmer to keep Farage out rather than defect to the Liberal Democrats, Greens or independents. Labour plans a parallel move in Scotland: 'Vote Farage, get SNP.' As my colleague John Rentoul noted, Labour should attack Farage for his 'fantasy economics' rather than being a 'privately-educated stockbroker'. Polling by More in Common shows that voters believe Starmer had a more privileged upbringing than Farage, and believe the Reform leader speaks more for the working class than the prime minister. Starmer allies insist the lesson has been learnt. Starmer's welcome moves to tackle child poverty and his U-turn on the winter fuel allowance suggest he realises he must also make a positive appeal to left-of-centre voters and not merely ape Reform with tough language on immigration, which such voters don't like. But he will need to go further, with an economic reset including tax rises, to pay for his new social justice commitments and avoid the impression that Wednesday's spending review will mean 'austerity 2.0'. Labour's approach has dangers: in attacking Farage head-on, some Labour MPs worry, the party risks amplifying his message and building him up further. There are no easy roads to a second Labour term.
