Nearly 1.7 million kids impacted by two-child benefit limit
Almost 1.7million children are living in households affected by the two-child benefit limit, grim data shows.
Keir Starmer is under fresh pressure to scrap the 'brutal' Tory-era policy, which is blamed for pushing hundreds of thousands of kids into poverty. Campaigners said children across the UK are going for days without a hot meal, sleeping in rooms covered in black mould or going to school in shoes that don't fit.
Official data on Thursday showed 1,665,540 children living in the households in England, Wales and Scotland were affected by the limit in April 2025, an increase of almost 40,000 - 37,150 - compared to the same time last year.
There were a total of 469,780 households on Universal Credit affected by the policy - an increase of 13,520 (3%) from the total number of households affected in April 2024. More than half (59%) of households affected by the policy are in work, the data showed.
But the impact of the policy isn't felt evenly across the country, with more than two in every five kids in some constituencies living in households affected by the two-child limit.
There were a total of 10,900 children living in households impacted by the two-child limit in the Hackney North and Stoke Newington constituency, which is held by Labour 's Diane Abbott. That works out as 42% of children living in the area, which is a higher proportion than in any parliamentary constituency in Great Britain.
Birmingham Ladywood has 11,940 children impacted by the policy, which is a higher total than anywhere else in the country. It works out at 34% of children living in the area, which is the second highest proportion in Britain.
In Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, 9,920 kids live in households impacted (31% of the total number living there), while in Bradford East the total is 9,200 (21% of all children), in Tottenham it's 7,890 (29%), in Bethnal Green and Stepney it's 6,790 (also 29%), in Birmingham Yardley it's 8,030 (again 29%), and in Walsall and Bloxwich it's 8,030 (also 29%).
You can see how many children are impacted by the policy in each constituency by using our interactive map. The map also shows you which MP and party currently controls the seat.
Many Labour MPs oppose the two-child limit, which could become a new focal point for tensions between backbenchers and Downing Street. The policy, introduced in 2017, restricts claims for Child Tax Credit and Universal Credit to the first two children.
Children's charities say the policy pushes 109 children across the UK into poverty every day. Ditching the police would lift 350,000 children out of poverty and mean 700,000 children are in less deep poverty, according to estimates from the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG).
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson last weekend said axing the two-child benefit is still on the table, with the Government's child poverty strategy looking at 'every lever' to lift children out of hardship. But she admitted removing the policy would be harder to do after a major climbdown on the Government's welfare cuts, which has left a £5billion hole in Rachel Reeves's spending plans.
Ms Phillipson said: "The decisions that have been taken in the last week do make decisions, future decisions harder. But all of that said, we will look at this collectively in terms of all of the ways that we can lift children out of poverty." Ministers will publish their child poverty strategy in autumn.
The Children's Commissioner has warned that children in Britain are facing 'Dickensian levels' of poverty, going without basic needs like heating, a place to wash or somewhere to eat breakfast. In a grim report released on Tuesday, Dame Rachel de Souza said some kids are living in awful housing conditions, with rats, mould and no water, and in dangerous areas with no safe transport route to get to school.
Almost a third of children (31%) in the UK - around 4.5 million kids - are living in poverty.
Joseph Howes, chair of the End Child Poverty Coalition, insisted scrapping the two-child benefit limit is "the lever that needs pulling first". He added: "We have heard the Government say that they are looking at all 'the available levers' to reduce child poverty.
'We all know that this is the lever that needs pulling first - backed up by the Government's own data released today. It's time for the Government to act."
Lord John Bird, Big Issue founder and crossbench peer, said: "When we hear warnings of children in the 21st century living in Dickensian levels of poverty, we must call this what it is: a poverty crisis. And Government policy that creates this crisis cannot be tolerated."
Dan Paskins, an executive director at Save the Children UK, described the figures as 'devastating and shameful in equal measure'. Almost 40,000 more children are now being punished just for having siblings,' he said
'Behind every number is a child missing out on essentials like food, clothing and a decent home, through no fault of their own. No child should be treated as less deserving simply because of when they were born. There is no way to reduce child poverty in this parliament without scrapping the two-child limit.'
Alison Garnham, chief executive of CPAG, said: 'Giving all kids the best start in life will be impossible until government scraps this brutal policy - and a year after the election families can't wait any longer for the help they desperately need.'
Lynn Perry, chief executive of Barnardo's, said: 'We welcome recent announcements from the government about the expansion of free school meals and the roll out of family hubs to every local authority in the country. But without immediate action, child poverty will simply continue to rise. Hundreds more children will be pulled into poverty with every week this continues.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Labour's next hit to independent schools could be far more insidious
Is Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson about to launch her latest onslaught on independent schools? Over the last year Labour has already imposed 20pc VAT on school fees and scrapped mandatory business rate relief for schools with charitable status, vindictively treating them differently from all other charities. Those two measures were unambiguous, public attacks on private education. What might now follow is rather more subtle, but all the more insidious. Phillipson has announced the Government is considering scrapping Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) for children with special educational needs (SEN), and planning to replace them with a less onerous and cheaper system. This may sound like good news to anyone who rightly thinks that public spending is out of control. Nearly 483,000 children, or 5.3pc of the school population, had an EHCP in the 2024-25 school year, according to government figures – an increase of 11pc on the previous year and a doubling since 2016. The numbers are clearly unsustainable. But might Phillipson's conversion to sound public finances be motivated by another factor? EHCPs are an essential part of why the state pays, either in whole or in part, for some children to go to independent schools. Local authorities are obliged to provide schooling to children living within its boundaries. But what if it is unable to provide adequate education to a given child due to their specific needs? This may be due to the fact that the child would not be able to cope with larger class sizes, or it might be because their dyslexia is at such a level that the local school is not set up to deal with it. More often than not, the local authority will do all in its power to avoid paying up for the independent school which can provide an adequate education suitable for that child. In 2024, less than half of EHCPs were issued by local authorities within the 20-week time limit required by law, according to the Department for Education. Many parents have to appeal the initial decision to the national SEN tribunal to try and achieve a satisfactory outcome. But some parents do eventually succeed in getting their local authority to pay for private provision. This school year there were 7,200 children with an EHCP attending mainstream independent schools, with more than 20,000 at specialist independent schools. When the Government imposed VAT on school fees the only category that remained exempted were local authorities paying fees for children with an EHCP. If these plans no longer exist, how will it be decided whether a local authority is obliged to pay for private provision? And what mechanism of appeal will there be? Will local authorities continue to pay for the education of children with existing EHCPs? These are questions that may be worrying many parents this weekend. It is also of concern to the schools themselves. For the independent mainstream schools, local authority-funded places for children with an EHCP will only be a very modest proportion of their total intake. But for specialist schools it is a different story. At one school in London, which is a world leader for children with dyslexia, around 60pc of pupils have their school fees paid for by their local authority. Paying for independent schooling is undoubtedly a heavy burden, but it is not the fault of parents that a local authority is unable to provide an adequate education for their child within its own schools. A move from Phillipson could turn out to be akin to what Michael Gove did as education secretary, when he increased the required employer contributions for teachers' pensions. Historically, most independent schools have been part of the state's pay-as-you-go, unfunded Teachers' Pension Scheme. In 2012, the employer contribution to the pension scheme was 14.1pc; this year it has reached double that at 28.68pc. Those who support sound public finances and are appalled by unaffordable public sector pensions may have been tempted to applaud that move. But in truth the measure has amounted to a levy on independent schools. Those in the state sector have had their funding increase commensurately – and in any case employer pension contributions for public sector employees in a pay-as-you-go scheme are only a matter of churning government funds. Gove's move is a major part of the reason for that fees at independent schools soared even before Labour imposed VAT, as the increased pension costs have been passed on to parents. As a result, middle-class parents have increasingly found themselves priced out of them. Whether the extra funding for the pension scheme is a saving to the state at all is debatable, if it pushed parents out of choosing an independent education. We do not have the details of what Phillipson may be planning to replace EHCPs with. But whatever Labour introduces, it is unlikely to be favourable to the private sector. As well as being a world leader in private education generally, some of the UK's specialist independent schools are also at the very pinnacle of what can be done for children with special needs. EHCP reform must not imperil these centres of excellence and damage the future prospects of thousands of children.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Why the Lords doesn't have to accept the Assisted Dying Bill
In an effort to hasten the Assisted Dying/Suicide Bill on to the statute books, Esther Rantzen and Lord Falconer have offered a novel interpretation of the role of the House of Lords. Falconer suggested that the Lords must 'uphold' what 'the Commons have decided to go ahead with'. Meanwhile, Rantzen said of Parliament's upper chamber: 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose.' Someone like Rantzen may be forgiven for playing so loose with conventions, but a former Lord Chancellor may not. Labour's manifesto made no reference to assisted suicide nor assisted dying The reality is that both the House of Commons and the House of Lords play an equal role in the passing of legislation, except when it comes to matters of financial privilege. For legislation to become law, it must be approved by both Houses; where there is disagreement on the detail, there is negotiation through 'ping pong' until agreement is reached or the Bill falls. This encourages both Houses to compromise and find a way through. Both adopt the same legislative stages, requiring MPs and Peers to approve the Bill as a whole, as well as the detail. If the Lords were not entitled to take a position on any Bill, then second and third reading would simply not exist. The second major convention of the Lords is the Salisbury-Addison Convention, which holds that the Lords does not try to vote down at second or third reading a government bill which implements a manifesto commitment. That convention is founded, as Viscount Cranborne spelt out in the 1940s, on the principle that 'it would be constitutionally wrong, to oppose proposals which have been put before the electorate'. In the case of the Assisted Dying/Suicide Bill, these conditions are not met. Labour's manifesto made no reference to assisted suicide nor assisted dying. Nor is this a Government Bill, despite the Prime Minister's personal support for the legislation. At every stage of the Bill's passage through the Commons, ministers told MPs that the Government is neutral on the Bill and the Bill represents the policy intent of the sponsor and not ministers. The Noble Lords are also entitled to feel frustrated that Lord Falconer expects the more diligent of the two Houses to cut short scrutiny. On legislation of any significance the Lords will typically take twice the time that the Commons does. The Commons took 15 days in Committee, two days for Report stage, and a day for Third Reading. The brevity of report stage was achieved only by curtailing debate, and the procedural controls that exist in the Commons. As such, while more than 90 concerns were identified by MPs at report stage, 80 were not even selected for a decision, eight were rejected, and just two that were not in Kim Leadbeater's name were accepted. If the sponsors of the Bill had been serious about securing the quick passage of the Bill through the Lords, more work should have been done in the Commons to ease the responsibility of the second House. The Lords should also be comforted that the end of the session is penciled in for May 2026. This means that they can take the time to look at the detail of the legislation. The thirteen sitting Fridays set aside in the Commons for the consideration of private members bills will have already run their course before second reading, which is due to take place on 12 September. The Lords is therefore under no pressure to return the Bill to meet a specific date, and it is the Government that will need to makeshift – should it chose to do so – to provide more time when the Bill completes its passage through the Lords. Nor is there any impact on the Government programme as the Bill can be dealt with on sitting Fridays, while Government legislation steadily progresses on other days. Finally, we turn to the risk that the Lords are not done with the Bill by the time the session ends. This is plausible: there might be simply too many problems to patch, particularly in the absence of any consultative work to guide deliberations. Here all sides should take comfort in the existence of the Parliament Acts and the specific provisions. The Royal Commission on Lords Reform concluded that the Parliament Acts – which enable the Commons to 'achieve almost any result it desired' – provided 'another reason for the existence of a second chamber sufficiently confident and authoritative to require the House of Commons, at the very least, to think again'. Should the Bill flounder in the Lords with too many unanswered questions, it would be perfectly permissible for the Government to take responsibility for setting up a Commission or Committee similar to the Warnock Commission or Peel Committee for IVF and Abortion to test the validity of the provisions and the policy approach taken in the Bill. If it was established that the Bill was safe, MPs could return with the same Bill. If the Bill was established as inadequate, a revised version could be developed. In the former scenario, Peers need not worry that amendments made the first-time round would be lost if the Parliament Acts were used. The Acts and Erskine May are clear that if the Bill were to be reintroduced a second time, it can include amendments 'made by the House of Lords in the former bill in the preceding session'; and if the Commons wished to propose further amendments recognising the debates in the Lords and indicating that the Commons is prepared to compromise, the Commons could also suggest these for insertion into the Bill. On three occasions, bills have been introduced in a second successive parliamentary session to potentially allow the Parliament Acts to be used – only for the Lords to agree to the bills, with the passage of time helping to establish a way forward. There are more than adequate mechanisms for the Commons to prevail should it wish to do so, but the Lords must not be bludgeoned into signing off a Bill of such complexity and significance. To do so is to abdicate responsibility and risks sacrificing some people, particularly the vulnerable, to secure the choice for others.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
UK politicians are in the pockets of the rich. Is that democracy?
At Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, Keir Starmer responded to a question from Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay about growing calls to introduce a tax on wealth for the super-rich – those with assets above £10 million – by saying he wouldn't 'take advice' from the Greens, and insisting that 'we can't just tax our way to growth'. We can, it seems, cut our way to growth though, as long as it's those already at the greatest risk of poverty who'll bear the brunt. On Wednesday evening, 333 Labour MPs voted to cut disability benefits by £2 billion per year, halving the health element of universal credit for new claimants, and cutting it altogether for new claimants aged under 22. At a certain point, when the faces and the colour of the rosettes change but the glaring injustices remain the same, we have to ask ourselves why. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (Image: Yui Mok) A common refrain among politicians is that right-wing policies that make life harder for social security claimants – or immigrants, or any other marginalised group – are popular. So popular that they have no choice but to implement them with gusto, because that's the will of the people, I guess. Meanwhile, I suppose we are to imagine that the average British voter is kept up at night worrying about the prospect of millionaires and billionaires being asked to pay more into our public services. As Tory leader Kemi Badenoch put it at PMQs, a wealth tax would be 'a tax on all of our constituents' savings, their houses, their pensions'. Who among us doesn't know and love someone with more than £10m in assets lying around? And surely we can all agree that they're the real victims? Back in the real world, a YouGov poll last week found that 75% of people in the UK would support introducing a wealth tax of 2% on wealth above £10m. Earlier this year, YouGov conducted another poll on behalf of Oxfam which found that 79% of over 16s in Scotland would rather the government tax the richest than make cuts to public spending. (Image: YouGov) And while it's true that some voters do believe that the welfare system is too generous, and the immigrants are draining the country of resources, it's important to remember that large sections of the British media, with their own vested interests, have spent not years but decades pushing precisely this narrative. It's disingenuous at best to persuade someone of something and then behave as though it was their idea all along. Alongside campaign groups Tax Justice UK and Patriotic Millionaires UK, Oxfam identified that the government could raise up to £24bn per year through a wealth tax which would apply to only 0.04% of the population. At the same time, charities and experts from across the UK and beyond – extending to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – have highlighted the damage that cuts to social security could cause to people's ability to make ends meet or simply live with dignity. So, if it's not the electorate telling politicians which policies to pursue, and it's not the data or the impassioned pleas of experts that persuade them, then what is it that drives them to make these decisions? READ MORE: Mark Brown: Why I plan to join Scotland's new radical left party Surely the answer is obvious by now. Time and again, right-wing and supposedly centrist politicians prove that nothing matters to them than the feelings of their rich donors and supporters – and nothing matters more to those wealthy individuals and large corporations than money. Successive governments' inaction on a range of urgent issues – from climate change, to energy prices, to raising taxes to fund crumbling public services – becomes far easier to understand once you realise that standing up to behemoth corporations and their numerous beneficiaries could cost these politicians dearly. If power for power's sake is the goal, if fuelling the party machine with big donations is a worthwhile end in and of itself, and if securing oneself a cushy position after – or perhaps during – your time in office is the ultimate prize, then making an enemy out of the 1% is a senseless endeavour. The dramatic decline in political party membership numbers over the past several decades mean that parties have become more and more reliant on a small pool of wealthy donors. Analysis by the Electoral Reform Society found that, during the 2024 election campaign, Labour received £6.7m from 'mega-donors', which made up 68.5% of their total donations up to polling day. This equates to 42 times the amount they took from the same type of donors during the 2019 election campaign. David Lammy secured a personal donor a job at the Foreign Office (Image: PA) When we ask ourselves how it is that the Labour Party have sold out on so many principles in such a short period of time, the answer is in the question. What chance does the average person – or community – stand to have their voice heard and acted upon by those in power while principles and policies are being sold to the highest bidder? Just last week, it was revealed by the Democracy for Sale substack that Foreign Secretary David Lammy gave a taxpayer-funded job in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to the former UK president of multinational PR company WPP after she donated £5000 to his office ahead of the election. This is only the latest in a series of jobs for donors that Labour have been scrutinised over. Under the ideal of democracy which we are encouraged to believe the UK represents, every eligible voter should have an equal say in elections and, by extension, an equal opportunity to have a say in the decisions the elected parliament makes. How far must our political leaders stray from this principle before we recognise that we are no longer ruled by democracy but plutocracy: a society controlled by people with great wealth or income? Consider that the UK's 50 richest families hold more wealth than 50% of the population, according to analysis from the Equality Trust. And while the top 20% hold 63% of the UK's wealth, the bottom fifth have only 0.5% of the wealth. READ MORE: The best way to defeat Reform UK? Expose the gaping holes in their politics Polls might show that the vast majority of the British public want to see the wealthy taxed more, but to imagine that this information would seize the Prime Minister with an urgency to act would be to believe that all views, experiences, voices or lives are equal. You only need to look at how this government – the progressive alternative to the old government – treats the most vulnerable to know that isn't true, not under this system. As long as money talks and those without are silenced, most of us will be out here screaming into the void. In case that seems too bleak a note to end on, a reminder: it doesn't have to be this way. Just look at the growing fervency with which the Tories and now Labour have sought to quash dissent through the criminalisation of peaceful protest, and the proscription of activist groups they don't like as terrorists. Even the frantic efforts of the Government to censor a rap group, Kneecap, over political statements is revealing. These are the actions of power under threat. They are terrified of ordinary people speaking their minds and telling them in no uncertain terms that enough is enough. That, alone, should act as motivation to keep doing just that.
