logo
Charities step up pressure on Keir Starmer to scrap two-child benefit cap

Charities step up pressure on Keir Starmer to scrap two-child benefit cap

The Guardian19-05-2025

Charities and a Labour-aligned pressure group are ramping up calls on Keir Starmer to scrap the two-child limit on benefits, as polling shows support for action on youth poverty remains high, and is equally solid among Labour voters tempted by Reform.
As discussions continue in government ahead of the forthcoming child poverty strategy, a survey commissioned by a coalition of charities suggests voters want to see families prioritised.
Almost three-quarters of those polled (73%) agreed that all 'children deserve a good childhood, even if it costs the government more to support families that need it' and 71% agreed that 'children should be a priority for government investment.'
Charities involved in commissioning the research included Save the Children, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), the Children's Society and Barnardo's.
Alison Garnham, the chief executive of CPAG, speaking on behalf of the group, said: 'Almost a year after the election, the government's manifesto commitment to tackle child poverty remains hugely popular.
'A child poverty strategy that increases living standards and improves life chances will make the crucial difference to children, their families and the country alike. The public stands in support of the 4.5 million children in the UK living in poverty and now it's time for government to act – starting by scrapping the two-child limit.'
It comes as Keir Starmer was told to bring in legally binding targets to reduce child poverty and integrate them into the missions of his government.
Baroness Ruth Lister, a former director of CPAG, argued in a new report that the two-child limit must be lifted and the benefit cap abolished. She urged Labour to to make child poverty more central to the government's actions.
The report for Compass, a progressive pressure group, is backed by Labour MP Simon Opher, who said in his foreword that the two-child limit for benefits must be immediately lifted.
'In the UK around one in three children live in poverty,' he wrote. 'As a society, and as a government, we can do better. Nothing is more important.'
No 10 currently has a child poverty taskforce working on an action plan due to be published this summer, but the government has so far resisted calls to scrap the two-child limit. Scotland is applying measures to mitigate the limit from next year, but it has been in force for universal credit or child tax credit claimants since 2017.
Whitehall insiders say one argument used by Labour strategists against removing the two-child limit is that it would be unpopular with voters, particularly those the party risks losing to Nigel Farage's Reform party.
But the polling backed by charities suggests voters who backed Labour in 2024 but are considering switching to Reform are just as keen to see child poverty tackled.
Among these Reform-curious Labour voters, 76% agreed that 'low benefit levels for families with children means children have unequal opportunities'.That figure was exactly the same as among committed Labour voters, and similar to levels among those considering a move to the Greens or the Lib Dems.
Similarly, 82% of Labour voters considering a switch to Reform agreed that 'the gap between the poorest and richest families in the UK is too large' – barely less than the 86% of Labour voters who intend to stick with the party.
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
Ed Dorrell, a partner at Public First, which carried out the UK-wide polling of 2,008 adults last month, said: 'Potential switchers from Labour to Reform, the Greens and the Lib Dems are united in wanting to end child poverty, in thinking the government has a role to play in this and in thinking that reversing benefit cuts would help.'
He added: 'If Labour wants to win their lost voters back, making progress on child poverty is something to prioritise, not play down.'
Scrapping the two-child limit, which means families do not receive key benefits, including the child element of universal credit for their third and subsequent children, is widely agreed by charities and thinktanks to be the most targeted and cost-effective way of tackling child poverty.
However, with little room to manoeuvre against the government's fiscal rules, ministers have recently been considering cheaper options.
These include a three-child limit or paying benefits at a lower rate for third and subsequent children.
Labour's general election manifesto promised an 'ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty' alongside a commitment to end 'mass dependence' on food banks and charity food handouts, which it called 'a moral scar on our society'.
In her report, Lister said the government must be willing to invest sufficient money if it is to achieve the manifesto commitment to an ambitious strategy, and that the money can be raised from the wealthy with the broadest shoulders.
She also called for people with lived experience of poverty to be involved in the strategy's execution and monitoring, for universal credit and child benefit to be raised and for free school meals to be made universal.
Ministers have been privately ruling out scrapping the two-child benefit cap, despite warnings from charities that a failure to do so could result in the highest levels of child poverty since records began.
Official figures this spring showed that a record 4.5 million children were living in poverty in the UK in the year to April 2024 – the final data for the last year of the Conservative government.
The figures showed an extra 100,000 children were living below the breadline. It was the third year running that child poverty had increased.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Welsh railways to get £445m investment in spending review
Welsh railways to get £445m investment in spending review

Rhyl Journal

time21 minutes ago

  • Rhyl Journal

Welsh railways to get £445m investment in spending review

Rachel Reeves is expected to announce the additional funding as part of her spending review, aiming to address what the Treasury sees as years of underinvestment in Welsh infrastructure. Understood to be a combination of direct funding and additional money for the Welsh government, the investment is expected to be spent on projects such as fixing level crossings, building new stations and upgrading railway lines. A Treasury source said: 'With this Government, Wales will thrive, and the Chancellor has prioritised bringing forward a package that has the potential to be truly transformative.' On Tuesday, Welsh First Minister Eluned Morgan told members of the Senedd that her government was 'expecting something positive from the spending review'. She said: 'I've been clear and I've been consistent when it comes to rail funding that we have not been getting our fair share of funding, in a position that the Tories left us with for over a decade. 'The difference between the Tories and the UK Labour Government is that they've recognised that injustice.' Baroness Morgan's comments came in response to criticism from Plaid Cymru leader Rhun ap Iorwerth of a decision to classify the £6.6 billion Oxford-to-Cambridge line as an England and Wales project. The designation means Wales will not receive the additional rail funding it would get if branded an England-only project. Mr ap Iorwerth said Wales had been 'getting our share until Labour actively moved the goalposts'. The expected announcement of additional funding for Welsh railways is one of several transport-related investments set to be confirmed on Wednesday. Ms Reeves has already announced plans to spend a total of £15.6 billion on public transport projects in England's city regions, and is understood to be preparing to extend the £3 cap on bus fares in England until March 2027.

Royal College of Pathologists comes out against assisted dying
Royal College of Pathologists comes out against assisted dying

Telegraph

time25 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Royal College of Pathologists comes out against assisted dying

The Royal College of Pathologists, which represents medical examiners, has come out against assisted dying. It said it could not support Kim Leadbeater 's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill because of the role that it was expected to play in the assisted dying process. Under the Bill, assisted deaths will not be automatically referred to a coroner, which is usual practice for potentially unnatural deaths and when a drug, authorised or otherwise, brings about death. This will mean that it is for medical examiners to scrutinise assisted deaths. The professional body that represents them says that they are not qualified to do so and warn that a lack of resourcing means that medical examiners may be pulled away from other parts of their vital work. Ms Leadbeater on Tuesday defended not involving coroners in the process. She said there was 'no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry' because adequate safeguards were in place. It comes as the Bill returns to the Commons for a debate on Friday, and a vote on the legislation is expected next week. Dr Suzy Lishman, senior adviser on medical examiners for the Royal College of Pathologists, said that the college had no position on the 'ethical issues' of legalising assisted dying. In a statement, Dr Lishman said: 'The college's concerns relate only to the involvement of medical examiners after an assisted death has taken place. 'As part of their scrutiny, medical examiners would need to review the process leading up to the decision to authorise an assisted death and the circumstances of the assisted death, which they are not qualified to do. 'Notification to the coroner following an assisted death would ensure independent judicial review, which is particularly important given the concerns raised by many individuals, organisations and medical royal colleges about the lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill for vulnerable people. 'Lawyers, not doctors, are the most appropriate professionals to review these deaths. The medical examiner system was implemented to detect problems with medical care, not to identify discrepancies or malintent in the legal process required for assisted deaths.' Dr Lishman also raised concerns about the need of 'significant' training and resources needed for medical examiners to be able to perform the role in the process. She said that this would risk 'potentially taking medical examiners away from their current important role'. The Royal College of Pathologists concluded: 'Coronial referral for assisted deaths would be in line with current regulations, with all deaths due to a medical intervention or medicinal product being notified.' Last year, Thomas Teague KC, the former chief coroner for England and Wales from 2020-24, expressed concern about the lack of coroner involvement in the Bill. In a letter to The Telegraph, he wrote: 'Since the coroner's jurisdiction affords a powerful deterrent against misfeasance, the public may wonder why the Bill proposes to abandon such a robust safeguard.' A letter signed by around 1,000 doctors from across the NHS published this week said that the Bill is a 'real threat to both patients and the medical workforce'. They said: 'We are concerned that the private member's Bill process has not facilitated a balanced approach to the collection of evidence and input from key stakeholders including doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups.' The Royal College of Pathologists is the latest royal college to come out against the legislation, after the Royal College of Psychiatrists voiced their opposition to the Bill last month. Ms Leadbeater said: 'The Bill does not prevent any assisted death being referred to a coroner, however this would not be required in the majority of cases. 'Coroners investigate deaths that have been reported to them if they think that the death was violent or unnatural, the cause of death is unknown, or the person died in prison or in custody. None of these would apply to a legal, assisted death under the terms of this Bill. 'Eligibility for an assisted death would have been assessed in advance by two independent doctors and a multi-disciplinary panel overseen by a commissioner who would be a High Court judge or retired judge. 'Each of these assessments would be subject to the extensive safeguards contained in the Bill to protect everybody, including the most vulnerable. 'Consequently, most cases would not require a judicial investigation after a person has died, and there would be no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry. 'However, in the event of any doubt at all, it would be open to a medical examiner, a family member or anybody with concerns to ask a coroner to investigate.'

Ed Miliband accused of ‘rewriting history' after claiming winter fuel axe was to stop millionaires cashing in
Ed Miliband accused of ‘rewriting history' after claiming winter fuel axe was to stop millionaires cashing in

The Sun

time26 minutes ago

  • The Sun

Ed Miliband accused of ‘rewriting history' after claiming winter fuel axe was to stop millionaires cashing in

ED Miliband was accused of 'rewriting history' yesterday after he claimed scrapping winter fuel was about stopping millionaires getting payments. The bungling Net Zero Secretary tried to justify Labour's original decision to strip the handout by suggesting the pensioners who would've missed out were all rich. 2 2 But some of them earned as little as £12,000 per year. Mr Miliband said: 'The principal question was, the richest in our society, should they get the winter fuel payment, should millionaires, should the richest get the winter fuel payment? 'I think the answer for most people to that is no.' The Net Zero Secretary's desperate bid to explain scrapping winter fuel payments – before the decision was partially reversed – was blasted by senior Tories, who accused him of spouting a 'pack of lies'. Shadow Energy Secretary Andrew Bowie told The Sun: 'Red Ed is even more out of touch than we thought if he thinks people will believe this pack of lies. 'The economy is worse off than when they found it - taxes higher, unemployment higher and living standards lower. 'He is just trying to rewrite history to try and cover up Labour's embarrassing U-turn.' Meanwhile, a flagship Net Zero plan has been spared ahead of next week's spending review — to opponents' dismay. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has ensured his £13billion warm homes scheme will not be downgraded after negotiations with the Treasury. Chancellor Rachel Reeves decided not to cut the cash which allows heating upgrades through better insulation, solar panels and heat pumps.

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