Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Pat McFadden Excerpts

2nd reading & Money resolution
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)]

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

Core to our belief is the idea that no one, no matter their background, should be trapped by their circumstances. People should have the chance to make the best life they possibly can. Poverty is a barrier to that ambition, and it makes it much harder for people to achieve their full potential.

This legislation has its roots in the change made during the Conservative years to introduce the two-child limit on support for families on universal credit. Let us be clear at the start about what this was always about. It was never really about welfare reform, nor was it even about saving money. No, this was always, first and foremost, a political exercise—an attempt to set a trap for opponents, with children used as the pawns. This was all about the politics of dividing lines: between the so-called shirkers and strivers, or the old distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. Politics first and policy second, every time.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has provoked me into responding. I served in the previous Conservative Government, and I was involved in all those decisions. There was a clear principle behind them: will people take responsibility for their own actions? There are thousands—millions—of people who choose not to have more children because they want to take responsibility for their lives, rather than the state doing so. With this change, the Government are saying to those people, “Not only will the state take responsibility, but you as the individual will have to pay for it through higher taxes.” That is the principle at stake here, and the Government are reversing a clear principled position taken by the last Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, let me say that there are many colleagues in the Chamber and I can understand how passionate this debate is, but let us try to keep the noise down when colleagues are contributing.

[Pat McFadden]

The right hon. Gentleman has set out the previous Government’s justification. I am about to explain why that did not stack up at the time, and why it certainly does not stack up after the experience of the policy.

We should begin by considering why no other neighbouring country has this two-child limit. Given that the policy was always primarily about politics, it is no surprise that it did not achieve the objectives that the right hon. Gentleman just tried to set out. The Tories claimed that this would lead to people making different choices about the number of children to have, but that did not happen. The family size premise was itself based on the fundamental misconception that there is a static group of people who are always on universal credit.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Pat McFadden]

Not at the moment. This is not a static group; people’s circumstances change, marriages break up, spouses die and jobs can be lost. In fact, around half of the families who will benefit from the lifting of the two-child limit were not on universal credit when they had any of their children. This is not a static group of people, which drives directly at the heart of the argument that the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) tried to make.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Twelve months ago, not only did the Government support the two-child cap, but they were busy suspending Labour Back Benchers who voted against it. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what it was about the Prime Minister’s weak position that caused him to change his mind?

[Pat McFadden]

I will come on to the timing of our decision, and exactly why it is right.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

rose—

[Pat McFadden]

Not at the moment.

As I said, around half the families who will benefit were not on universal credit when they had any of their children. These are people who found themselves in need of help long after any decisions about family size had been taken.

No account was taken of the costs of the policy further down the line, such as lower educational attainment, worse mental health and lower earnings, perhaps for the whole of people’s working lives.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Does the Secretary of State regret saying that whether the two-child cap on benefits causes harm is “open to debate”?

[Pat McFadden]

No, I do not regret anything I have ever said on this issue. All along in this debate, there has been an attempt to divide workers from non-workers—

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

[Pat McFadden]

I shall if the right hon. Lady shows a little patience.

Around 60% of the families affected by the current policy are in work, and of those who are not working, a significant number are affected by serious health conditions or caring responsibilities—circumstances in which any of us could find ourselves. As I have said, this was never really about work, decisions about family size or saving money; it was political through and through. It was children who paid the price, with 300,000 more of them going into poverty as a result.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

rose—

[Pat McFadden]

The right hon. Gentleman is very keen, so I will give way.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

It appears that those 300,000 were in poverty a year ago, but the Secretary of State has allowed that to persist till now. What has changed? It is not the fiscal situation, and it is not any room in the benefits budget. This is the Labour equivalent of Project Save Big Dog, is it not?

[Pat McFadden]

Timing matters, and if the right hon. Gentleman shows a little patience, I will tell him exactly why we have done this in the timeframe that we have.

All the policy did was force more children into poverty, alongside the Conservatives’ other key welfare measure of trapping the sick out of work. Even some voices on the right recognise the damage that this policy did. Former Tory Welfare Minister Lord Freud described it as “vicious” and said it had been forced on the Department for Work and Pensions by the Treasury at the time, and the former Conservative Home Secretary and new recruit for Reform, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), has said,

“Let’s abolish the two-child limit, eradicate child poverty for good”.

I do not know whether that is still her position—we will find out at tonight’s vote—but it seems that the party she has now joined wants to restore the two-child limit. Reform is importing not just failed Tory politicians, but failed Tory policies.

Between 2010, when the Conservatives came into office, and the summer of 2024 when they left it, the number of children in poverty had risen by some 900,000. That is something to ponder as Members on the Opposition Benches have their debate about whether or not Britain is broken. If it is, who was responsible? Who designed the welfare system that they tell us on a daily basis is broken? They did. Who broke the prisons system that we have had to rescue? They did. Who shook international confidence in our economy and its key institutions? They did. This is the inescapable problem with the Conservatives’ current position: an attack line that says, “We trashed the country and left you with a terrible inheritance,” might just not be the winning argument they think it is. Let them have their debate about whether Britain is broken while we get on with the task of fixing what they left behind.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

As my right hon. Friend has described, this is a crucial policy, but it is a downpayment on tackling other failures of the former Government, including the poor-quality and overcrowded housing that puts too many children in poverty of situation. Is he proud, as I am, that we now have a Labour Government who are tackling these issues and getting our children where they should be?

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend is right, and the point she makes is that we also tackle these issues piece by piece and over time.

I turn now to the question that people have asked: “Why not do this right away?” Here is the difference between government and opposition. The truth is that in opposition, it is easy to tally up everything that is wrong with the country and promise to reverse it, but a winning manifesto has to be more than a list of what is wrong.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Pat McFadden]

Not at the moment. We spent plenty of time in opposition writing those lists—we had many years to do it—only to see them turn to dust on the morning of an election defeat. Good intentions were written off by the voters because the hard yards of winning their trust on the essentials of exercising power had not been done. Change comes only by earning the trust that is essential to victory, and it is because we did that that we are able to sit on the Government Benches and change anything at all, whether for children, low-paid workers or anyone else.

Our first job when we came into office was to stabilise the economy after the irresponsibility and chaos of the Tory years, and even after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had done that, change still has to be paid for. That is why she was right to spell out at the Budget that this policy can only be introduced now, and can only be funded through a combination of savings from fraud and error in the benefits system, changes to the Motability scheme, and reform of online gambling taxation.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have tried my best to be patient, as he indicated I should be, but surely he agrees that there is only one way for him to pay for these increases, which is taxes?

[Pat McFadden]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor spelled out at the Budget how this was going to be paid for. If the right hon. Lady did not hear me the first time, I am happy to repeat myself: savings from fraud and error in the benefits system, changes to the Motability scheme—which the Conservatives did not make when they were in power—and reform of online gambling taxation.

It was also right that we took the time to do the work on the child poverty strategy, which was so ably co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. That work meant that the strategy included wider policies on childcare, school holidays help and a number of other measures, as well as those that are in today’s Bill.

The Bill is about ensuring that children have the chance of a better life. It will mean 450,000 fewer children in poverty in the last year of this Parliament and, taken together with the other measures in the child poverty strategy, will lift an estimated 550,000 children out of poverty. This Labour Government will reduce child poverty, just as the last Labour Government did.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

I am glad that the UK Government are finally taking action on child poverty and removing the two-child cap on universal credit—a policy, of course, that Plaid has opposed from the start. However, more than one in five households affected by the two-child limit will not benefit because of the cap on benefits. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government should now lift the benefit cap, so that every eligible household and every eligible child receives the full support this Bill sets out to provide?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

I remind the hon. Lady that the benefit cap does not apply to families who are in work or who have a disabled child. It is in place, and that approach balances support and fairness without undermining incentives to work.

The Bill removes the need for the vile policy known as the rape clause, which is a feature that we inherited from the Conservative regime. Women will no longer have to relive terrible experiences to get support for their child. For the families who will benefit, this measure will help all children, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. My understanding is that it is the current position of the Conservative party to bring back the limit, and therefore to bring back that provision. Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), can clarify that when she comes to speak, and perhaps Reform Members can clarify their position when they contribute to the debate.

The policy change made by this Bill is not just about the redistribution of money—it is not just about placing children on the right side of an income line in a spreadsheet. It is about changing the story of children’s lives. That is an investment worth making for the whole country. It is about giving children a genuine shot at life, so that they can do well at school, stay healthy, and contribute to their country and community as an adult. That is harder when children grow up poor, as they are less likely to do well at school, with less than a quarter of children in the lowest-income households getting five good GCSEs.

By the age of 30, those who grew up poor are likely to be earning about 25% less than their peers. They are four times more likely to experience mental health problems, with growing consequences for worklessness and for the benefits bill that we are seeing in today’s system. They are more likely not to be in education, employment or training—those numbers grew rapidly in the final years of the Conservatives’ time in power, and they did nothing about it. That is why we are reforming the system by changing the incentives of universal credit, ending a situation in which the sick have been signed off and written off, and increasing support to get disabled people into work. As Sir Charlie Mayfield estimated in his recent “Keep Britain Working” report,

“Someone leaving the workforce in their 20s can lose out on over £1 million in lifetime earnings—with the state incurring a similar cost”

to support them. These are the kinds of consequences that were not thought through when the Conservatives’ policy was introduced, but it is essential that they are part of our debate about changing it.

Investing in children’s potential today is about changing lives through better educational attainment, improved health and a better chance of a decent job. The most radical thing that a Government can do is enable people to change their own story. Our ambitions should go well beyond providing financially for people; they should be about providing the platform for that change, so there is a direct link between this Bill and the other things we are doing. We are providing more help with childcare for working parents in order to make work pay and to ease the choice between looking after children and taking up a job. That is in their interests and in the national interest—why should we lose the talents of those who have children?

The youth guarantee will help the young unemployed with training, work experience and ultimately a subsidised job, so that they know the pride and purpose that comes with having work. That is in their interests and in the national interest. We have more apprenticeships for young people, stopping the 40% decline in youth apprenticeship starts over the last decade. That is in their interests and in the national interest. Better life chances are part of the battle against the human and social cost of more and more young people being signed off sick and declared unfit for work. All these things will become more urgent as the population ages and we need more young workers to support the country. A better start in life is a bond between the generations. A good childhood is in all our interests and in the national interest.

This debate is part of a wider one in politics. In this debate and in others, we have seen a politics of division in this country that wants to set person against person and group against group, and I believe we are only in the foothills of it. We will see more of this division, both home-grown and imported from overseas, becoming ever harsher as it seeks to use rage to fuel itself and to win support. That is the battle to come, not just on this issue, but much more widely—and I want to make it clear today that we set ourselves against that politics, and make a clear and explicit choice to reject it.

Anger and division are not the fuel upon which this country’s future must be built. They will produce nothing. They will solve nothing. Indeed, they will only perpetuate the chaos in the country that people are so tired of. Instead, we embrace the mantle of hope to offer a chance and not a grievance—a society where we help each other up, rather than try to tear each other down, and where we say to those born into poor circumstances, “We will help you be the best you can be, not through altruism, but because we need you, we believe in you and we want your contribution.” That is in our interests and in the national interest. This is the fight to come between these two kinds of politics; that is what the change in this Bill is all about, and it is why I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.