Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.

New clause 1—Removal of two child limit: report on effects on children in households subject to the benefit cap—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the effects of this Act on households and children.

(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must include an estimate of the total number of households, and the number of households in poverty, which will not receive—

(a) an overall increase in benefit support from the abolition of the two child limit from April 2026 due to being subject to the overall benefit cap, and

(b) the full potential increase in benefit support they would have been entitled to from the abolition of the two child limit from April 2026, but for the fact that they became subject to the overall benefit cap following any increase provided through the abolition of the two child limit, and the assessment must include the total number of children in such households, and the impact on the number of such households in poverty.

(3) The estimates made under subsection (2) must include analysis at the following levels—

(a) country,

(b) county,

(c) local authority, and

(d) parliamentary constituency.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effects of the Act on households and children, including the number who will either not receive an increase in benefit support, or the full potential increase, because they are subject to the benefit cap.

New clause 2—Report on the effects on households with a disabled family member—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the effects of this Act on the number of households in poverty with more than two children that have at least one disabled family member.

(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must also consider—

(a) the cumulative impact of changes to universal credit since July 2024 on households in poverty that have at least one disabled family member, and who are affected by this Act, and

(b) any changes in the standard of living for households with—

(i) three or more children, and

(ii) at least one person in receipt of the Universal Credit health element, arising from implementation of this Act.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment of the effects of the Act on households in poverty that have at least one disabled family member.

New clause 3—Review of the impact of the Act on child poverty, destitution, and wider social and economic outcomes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act coming into force, review the effect of this Act on—

(a) overall levels of child poverty in the UK;

(b) levels of destitution and deep poverty among households with children;

(c) households in receipt of Universal Credit which include children;

(d) educational outcomes for children in households affected by poverty;

(e) physical and mental health outcomes for children in households affected by poverty; and

(f) longer-term impacts on economic participation, workforce skills, and demand on health and welfare services arising from child poverty and destitution.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the conclusions of the review.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the effects of the Act on child poverty, destitution, and wider social and economic outcomes.

New clause 4—Assessment of the impact of the Act on child poverty—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the effects of this Act on children and child poverty.

(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must consider households with three or more children which are subject to, or as a result of this Act become subject to, the benefit cap.

(3) The assessment must estimate the annual cost to the Exchequer of—

(a) implementation of this Act, and

(b) implementation of this Act if households were not subject to the benefits cap.

(4) The Secretary of State must consult the following organisations in undertaking the assessment—

(a) Child Poverty Action Group,

(b) End Child Poverty Coalition,

(c) Save the Children UK,

(d) The Children’s Society,

(e) Barnado’s UK,

(f) Action for Children,

(g) Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and

(h) any other organisation that he deems appropriate.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a copy of the assessment.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effects of this Act on children and child poverty in consultation with a number of relevant specialist organisations and also assess the cost of removing the cap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am sure that we will turn to the points that my hon. Friend makes in a few moments, but I reassure her that we will undertake a thorough evaluation of the impacts of the strategy. We will publish regular updates, and I think she will find there the information that she is interested in.

We cannot leave millions of children to succumb to the damaging impacts of poverty. The Government want instead to invest in children and in Britain’s future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I will speak in part to amendments 1 and 2, although we will not vote on them this evening. Essentially, I am speaking because we do not believe that scrapping the two-child limit and lifting it in this way is the way to tackle child poverty.

When the Conservatives introduced the two-child limit in 2017, we did so for one simple reason: fairness. We believed then, as we do now, that people on benefits should face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work. Nine years later, we stand by that principle.

The welfare state should be a safety net for people in genuine need, yet too many people feel that the welfare system has drifted from its original purpose. They see a system that rewards dependency while working families and individuals shoulder the tax burden. The two-child limit is a way of saying that work should pay, that taking responsibility should matter and that the system should stand with those who pull their weight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

I speak in support of new clause 4, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), me and others, and I will try to be as brief as I can. Scrapping the two-child limit in full remains the single most impactful step we can take to reduce child poverty, and will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030. When combined with other measures in the child poverty strategy, more than 550,000 children will be lifted out of poverty by the end of the decade.

Some Members of this House have said, “How can the country justify this multibillion-pound spend?” It is around £3 billion a year, but child poverty costs the UK economy £39 billion annually—more than 10 times as much. That £39 billion reflects poorer health, lower educational attainment, increased pressure on public services and lost economic potential. Investing £3 billion to reduce a £39 billion problem is not reckless spending; it is a highly targeted, cost-effective investment with long-term returns. It is preventive policy at its very best.

Other Members have asked why taxpayers should support larger families. Well, the honest truth is that only a very small number of families have more than four children, and almost all are working hard to provide for them. The two-child limit has had no measurable impact on family planning and has not influenced fertility rates; it simply punishes children who are already here. Every child, regardless of birth order, deserves enough food, a safe home and a fair start in life. When children are supported to thrive, they do better in school, stay healthier and contribute more fully as adults, and that benefits all of us.

Those who argue that support should not go to families out of work should remember that six in 10 children affected by the two-child limit live in households where at least one parent works, and those families are taxpayers too. As my mum says, there but for the grace of God go I. A crisis can happen in an instant at any moment, and bereavement, illness, redundancy or family breakdown can push any household into temporary reliance on universal credit. A humane and flexible social security system exists to provide stability in those moments of crisis.

I urge all Members to support the passage of the Bill today, but it must be just the start and we must go further. Alongside scrapping the two-child limit, we have to address the wider benefit cap, which was introduced in 2013. It has bored down on the backs of many families like a rucksack full of lead. Organisations including the Child Poverty Action Group, the End Child Poverty Coalition, Save the Children UK, the Children’s Society, Barnardo’s, Action for Children and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have all highlighted the damaging impact of the overall cap. It places arbitrary ceilings on support, regardless of rent levels, local costs or family size. It disproportionately affects single parents—overwhelmingly women—and families in high-cost areas. It drives rent arrears, temporary accommodation and homelessness, and the evidence is clear that it does not meaningfully increase employment; it increases hardship.

If we are serious about tackling structural poverty, we cannot remove one barrier while leaving another firmly in place. Lifting the overall benefit cap would complement the removal of the two-child limit, ensuring that the gains we make today are not clawed back through arbitrary ceilings that fail to reflect real living costs. I applaud the Government for scrapping the two-child cap, which is the right thing to do, but I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances that his next step will be to look at lifting the benefit cap.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind Members to speak specifically to the amendments.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

The Government should have brought this Bill forward as soon as they were elected 19 months ago, but they failed to do so. They could have listened to the families and children—with more than 200,000 children affected—enduring the overall benefit cap before making their final plans, but they failed to do so. Ministers still could have listened to the many hon. Members, including myself, who said on Second Reading that the policy was too narrow. They could have widened the scope of the Bill, but they failed to do so. The Bill is not wrong, but it fails to do right by far too many children.

I speak in support of new clause 1, which has wide cross-party support. It would mandate a full assessment within six months of the families left in poverty by the failure of the Government to tackle the overall benefit cap, showing its impact on each of our constituencies and the families we represent. We need to know who is left out from the help provided in this Bill, including those who are left in poverty.

We also need to know the wider impacts as the change takes hold. That includes the removal of exemptions, because this Government are seeking at the same time to remove people from the few qualifying benefits that exempt people from the cap, including disability benefits. This wider attack on benefit claimants threatens to make the gap in the Bill even worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

The claim that there was no money left was disproved time and again. The argument that the Tories put forward was that we were spending too much on tackling poverty, on paying teachers and on our health service, but the crisis was a result of speculation, due to deregulation under the Tories for over 30 years—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that he has strayed some distance from the Bill.

[John McDonnell]

True, true, so I will bring this section of my remarks to a fairly rapid conclusion. What happened was that the Chancellor at that time—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

No, we are going to return to the amendments to the Bill.

[John McDonnell]

My amendment to the Bill would tackle the inequity that was introduced as a result of George Osborne’s policies, which targeted children and disabled people. That is what they did; that is what that was about. What the Conservatives have done today is what they did in 2013 when they introduced the policy. They thought, “How can we construct a moral argument for this?”, so they reverted to the 19th-century Poor Law and the argument of less eligibility. The idea behind the 19th-century Poor Law was that someone in need of support should never be raised to the level of decency of an ordinary labourer. This policy echoed the argument from the 19th century that we cannot allow people to be raised out of poverty; they must remain in poverty. That is what the Poor Law did, and that is what this policy did. It thrust hundreds of thousands of children into poverty and deep poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

That is absolutely true. I accept the rebuke, which is completely reasonable. It is not the parents’ fault—I should have been far clearer about that. I tend to think that poverty and a lack of privilege are caused by a lack of choices. Poverty means that people cannot make mistakes, while privilege means that they can. I can make mistakes because I have enough of a financial cushion and family support. For people who live in poverty, without family support or with poor mental health, one mistake can mean very quickly spiralling into an un-rescuable situation. That is how I think about privilege: those situations are not anybody’s fault. Just because I am lucky enough to be in a more privileged position, I am allowed to make far more mistakes than someone who is struggling on the breadline. How is that fair?

Conservative Members made comments about people working hard. A lot of the people who are on universal credit while working are in the jobs that we really need people to do. They work as carers, shopworkers and all sorts of other jobs that not one of us would say are easy. I do not know if any Members have worked as care workers. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) has been a carer and knows how physically and emotionally demanding that is. Someone working in care and being paid the minimum wage is doing a physically demanding, very necessary and hard job, yet they might still be in receipt of universal credit because they earn so little. I hate the distinction made between people who work hard and people who do not, when that is based simply on salary—not the fact that lots and lots of people work hard for very little money, because the minimum wage is not a real living wage but just a minimum wage.

I think I have been clear about some of the issues raised in the debate, including the benefit cap, issues faced by disabled family members and disabled children, and the effect of these measures on child poverty, destitution and wider social outcomes. On that last point, all of us, and particularly Governments, could probably do more about the impacts of poverty and ensuring that those are also measured.

Some of the monitoring and evaluation suggestions for the child poverty strategy look at the cold, hard measure of how many children are in poverty, and at how those numbers are reduced or increased as things go on, but they look less at some of the impacts. To be fair to the hon. Member for South West Devon, how do such measures impact on school readiness? Can we see more information on whether the Government’s plans have had an impact on school readiness? Has there been an improvement in the mental health of young people as a result of these measures on child poverty?

I still think that the Government are deeply unambitious and they could do more on the benefit cap. They could also do more, for example, to match the Scottish child payment; child poverty has been reducing in Scotland because that is the key mission of our SNP Government. It is worth looking at what works anywhere in these islands, and seeing whether it could or should be replicated to ensure that we reduce poverty and protect children, and that everybody has those opportunities—no matter how much their parents earn, how many children are in the family and whether there is a disabled family member. It is important that every one of us champions every child in our constituencies, and tries to ensure that they get the best possible start in life.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. Interventions in the child poverty strategy will lead to the biggest expected reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since comparable records began. I well understand the concerns of those saying we should go further, and it is certainly right to urge the Government to do that, but let us recognise how big a change this will be. Removing the two-child limit is the key step. It will help children to live better lives, fulfil their potential, have better mental health, do better at school, and thrive in the future. That change is in the national interest.

The amendments propose a number of reports on different topics, and I am grateful that everybody who has spoken to them has indicated that they support the Bill. New clauses 1 and 4 ask the Secretary of State to report on the effect on children in households subject to the benefit cap. Indeed, new clause 4, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), fulfils a commitment that he made on Second Reading to devise an amendment that would have that effect. It is an important point, and something we need to monitor carefully, but it is in the best interests of children to be in working households—and keeping the benefit cap in place protects the incentive to work. Work incentives are important. Under the policies of the last Government, far too many people gave up on work and concluded that it was not worth their while. We want it to be clear to everyone that it is worthwhile to be in work, and the Universal Credit Act 2025, enacted last summer, made an important step in that direction.

Removing the two-child limit does not undermine work incentives. From time to time, the Conservatives suggest that it does, but actually it does not. Removing the two-child limit increases the income of many families in work and increases the reward for work, and it does not undermine work incentives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Scrapping the two-child limit is an investment in the future of children and of the country. Two million children will benefit from this Bill. We will be held to account on progress through the monitoring and evaluation arrangements we have put in place to ensure that the change we are making is genuinely lasting. I want to thank every Member who has contributed to these debates. Removing the two-child limit from universal credit will help more children to fulfil their potential, to grow up make a positive contribution and to be part of a fairer, stronger country. I hope that the whole House will now support this vital measure.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.