The two-child benefit cap, a policy introduced in 2017, has become a significant issue in the UK, particularly for the Labour Party. Initially designed to limit financial support to families claiming Universal Credit (UC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC) for only the first two children, this policy now affects 450,000 households and 1.6 million children. The number of affected households has grown from 422,000 last year and just 40,000 when the policy was first implemented. This increase poses a pressing question for Labour: Should the cap be lifted?
Understanding the Two-Child Cap
The two-child cap restricts additional financial support for third or subsequent children born after April 2017. This means that families who experience changes in circumstances—such as job loss, divorce, or the birth of another child—find themselves without additional financial assistance. The Resolution Foundation reports that the rise in affected households is not primarily due to changes in family structures, but rather the ongoing impact of the policy as more children are born under its constraints.
The Labour Party’s Position
The Labour Party, along with other political groups like the Liberal Democrats, Greens, and SNP, generally opposes the two-child cap. They argue that it exacerbates poverty without incentivising employment or higher wages, as initially intended. Many Conservatives also recognise the policy's shortcomings, acknowledging that it impoverishes families rather than encouraging self-sufficiency.
A review is currently underway to assess the cap’s effects and the financial implications of its potential abolition. However, Labour faces a complex decision. While the policy's removal could alleviate child poverty, it also presents a significant financial challenge, with estimates suggesting it would cost the Treasury around £2.5 billion this year, rising to £3.6 billion as it fully rolls out.
Regional Impact and Employment
The cap's impact is not evenly distributed across the UK. London, the North West, and the West Midlands are particularly affected, though comprehensive regional data is limited. Notably, 59% of the affected households are in work, highlighting that employment alone does not protect families from poverty. The rise in the national minimum wage has not been sufficient to offset the cap’s financial impact, indicating that many working families remain vulnerable.
Alternatives to Ease Child Poverty
Beyond abolishing the two-child cap, other measures could be taken to alleviate child poverty. One approach is to lift the benefit cap, a separate policy that limits the total benefits a family can receive. Currently, this cap is set at £25,323 for couples and £16,967 for singles in London, with lower caps outside the capital. Like the two-child limit, this policy disproportionately affects larger families. Abolishing the benefit cap could cost an additional £500 million annually.
Another solution is to increase the base level of benefits, which has decreased in real value by 7.6% since 2010. Increasing these benefits would provide more immediate relief to low-income families. Furthermore, boosting employment opportunities for parents, particularly through enhanced support at Job-centres and expanded access to free childcare, could help reduce dependency on welfare.
The Political and Ethical Dimensions
The debate over the two-child cap is not just a financial issue but also a moral and ethical one. It raises fundamental questions about the role of government in supporting vulnerable families and ensuring children do not bear the brunt of economic hardship. For Labour, deciding whether to advocate for the cap’s removal involves balancing economic prudence with social justice.
As the review continues, Labour and other political actors must consider not only the immediate costs of policy changes but also the long-term benefits of reducing child poverty. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the UK's social and economic landscape, particularly for the most vulnerable families who rely on these benefits for basic necessities.