Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Debate between Rebecca Smith and Jim Shannon

Committee of the whole House
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which provides me with a great opportunity to say something that I realised again while preparing for this debate. We know that lots of working people claim universal credit, but what we do not know is how many hours those people work, which would enable us to ascertain how many of them are full-time workers and how many are part-time workers. Of course, if they are full-time workers, there is one argument to be made, but if—as I would assume—the vast majority are part-time workers, we need to be encouraging them to work more hours. Later in my speech, I am going to get to a point where this is a problem, given all the other passported benefits that they get once they are entitled to universal credit.

How can it be fair to expect working parents to subsidise other families’ decisions that lie beyond their own financial reach? We also must not forget the single people whose household overheads are higher than in dual-income households. In 2024, there were 8.4 million people living alone in the UK—nearly 30% of households. They, too, should not be saddled with the extra tax burden that scrapping the two-child limit will inevitably create.

This Labour Government prefer handouts to hard choices. Giving away cash will always be more popular than exercising fiscal responsibility—the Back Benchers like it, and the left-wing think-tanks like it. The families who will get thousands more pounds every year like it, and who can blame them? Spending other people’s money is an easy way for the Government to feel good about themselves, but that money must come from somewhere. This Government are only pretending that they can afford to scrap the cap; originally, they said that doing so was unaffordable. That is true—the cost of this policy will be about £3.5 billion—but instead of sticking to his guns, our Prime Minister has capitulated to his Back Benchers. It requires backbone to bring the welfare budget under control, and backbone is exactly what Labour lacks.

In contrast, previous Conservative Governments did indeed control spending; until the pandemic, spending on working-age welfare fell in real terms. That is why we have committed to save £23 billion. We will crack down on the abuse of Motability, we will stop handing out benefits to foreign nationals—because citizenship should mean something—and we will stop giving benefits to people with low-level mental health problems, to ensure that we can target support to the people who need it most.

Under Labour, the overall benefits bill continues to balloon. By the end of this decade, health and disability benefits alone are set to reach £100 billion—I did read that right. Scrapping the cap is fiscally irresponsible and Labour knows it. This Bill will only increase the tax burden on hard-working men and women whose household budgets are already being stretched to the limit.

[Jim Shannon]

I feel I have to disagree with the hon. Lady, for a very simple reason. The Minister has mentioned my comment on Second Reading that 50,000 children will be lifted out of poverty in Northern Ireland, and some 13,000 families will have a better standard of living. The mark of any society is that whenever those who are less well off need help, we must help them. That is why I think the Government are doing the right thing: they are helping to lift people out of poverty, and what is wrong with that?

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course how we care for the most vulnerable is the mark of our society, but as Conservatives we do not believe that it is simply about trying to lift them up by giving them extra cash. All we are doing is changing the relative poverty measure; we are not suddenly lifting all these people out of poverty because we are giving them more money. We do not know what they are going to spend that money on. What we need to do is spend the money not on sticking plasters, but on putting things in place that actually have a systemic impact. We need to bring people from long-term poverty into a long-term position in which they can afford what they need.

Inflation has soared to nearly twice as high a level as when this Government entered office. Food prices are rising. Utility bills are rising. Even the cost of relaxing at the pub with a beer is rising. We cannot lift children out of poverty by making the whole country poorer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has argued so persuasively. When inflation rises, spending power falls. The money people earn buys less, because each pound is worth less than before; indeed, the money people receive on benefits is also worth less because of inflation. Families feel it at the checkout, at the petrol station and with every bill that drops through the door.

Inflation not only squeezes families’ budgets, but narrows their choices. With the cost of everyday essentials continuing to climb, many working families are being forced to delay or even abandon plans for another child. Scrapping the two-child cap gives families on benefits a choice that many working households can no longer dream of: the ability to grow their family without facing financial choices.

This unfairness erodes trust in our social contract. The social contract is an implicit agreement between citizens and the state that gives the state its legitimacy. People work and pay their taxes; in return, they trust the state to step in if they fall on hard times. They trust the state to spend their taxes responsibly on their behalf, but the welfare system has become totally lopsided. Over half the households in this country now receive more from the state than they pay into it. Taxpayers are supporting a system larger than themselves. Scrapping the two-child limit will further exacerbate the imbalance.

The problem does not stop there. There is an entire shadow system working alongside universal credit. As I have mentioned, passported benefits are costing the taxpayer £10 billion every single year. They include healthy food cards, discounted broadband and free prescriptions. Together, they distort work incentives, leading to a cliff-edge denial of entitlements when a claimant comes off universal credit. Many parents want to work, but are better off remaining on benefits once they factor in their loss of eligibility for those extra entitlements. Yet again, they have been let down by a system that should be supporting them into work, not trapping them on benefits.

Self-employed Adoptive Parents: Statutory Support

Debate between Rebecca Smith and Jim Shannon

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on statutory support for self-employed adoptive parents. Self-employed adopters are currently excluded from any statutory parental pay. For far too long, this exclusion has been overlooked as too niche a problem, but in fact it exposes a much deeper inconsistency in the way our parental leave and pay system works—one that affects not only adoptive families but the wider functioning of the adoption system in England.

This debate comes at an especially challenging time for adopted children and adoptive families. Demand for post-adoption support is rising, including for mental health services, therapeutic help and emotional support, while the availability of those services has become more uncertain, uneven and under-resourced. A recent investigation by the BBC uncovered systemic issues within post-adoption support, highlighting challenges I will cover later in my speech, and which we will no doubt hear about from other Members.

First, though, I would like to address the issue that has led to this debate. There is currently a deep inconsistency in the way our parental leave and pay system works for adoptive families. At present, employed birth parents can access statutory maternity leave and pay; self-employed birth parents can access maternity allowance, which is equivalent to maternity pay; and employed adopters can access statutory adoption leave and pay. Self-employed adopters, however, cannot access any form of statutory adoption leave or pay. The consequence is that self-employed adoptive parents face a uniquely disadvantaged position, with no statutory mechanism enabling them to take time away from work to support a child entering their family—a child who we know is more than likely to have experienced trauma, loss or disruption.

Self-employment now makes up a large part of the workforce, with around 4.4 million people working for themselves across the UK. It is estimated that self-employed adopters make up 10% of adopters annually; given that just over 3,000 adoptions took place last year, that means that hundreds of families a year are being left with no statutory financial support at the moment that they take legal and parental responsibility for a child.

It is important to be clear about what adoption pay is actually for and why it exists. Unlike maternity provision, which has historically been justified by the Government on health and recovery grounds, statutory adoption pay exists for a different purpose altogether. In 2022, the previous Government stated in a written answer that statutory adoption pay is essential to the success of an adoption placement in order that an adopter can take time off work to care for and, most importantly, to bond with their child.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate; I spoke to her beforehand to ask her permission to intervene and to very quickly give her a Northern Ireland perspective. In Northern Ireland, shared parental leave and pay—SPL and ShPP—are entitlements as financial support for adoptive parents. If one adopter qualifies for statutory adoption pay, couples may share leave or pay under SPL, but that presumes employment under a qualifying employer. Does the hon. Lady agree—I think this is what she is trying to achieve—that under all legally binding work contracts, all employers should be incentivised to ensure that employees can qualify for shared adoption leave, and that there should in fact be an onus on them to do just that?

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and particularly for highlighting the case in Northern Ireland. Parental leave and shared parental leave for adopters was something that the previous Government fought hard to bring in, so I agree that that is something that should apply across all our isles. Ultimately, though, that will be for the Minister to talk about; I am guessing it is probably a devolved issue, but no doubt it will come up in his remarks a bit later.

As I was saying, in 2022 the previous Government stated that it is essential to the success of an adoption placement that the adopter takes time off work in order to care for and bond with their child. That principle must be fairly applied regardless of whether a parent is employed or self-employed.

For self-employed adoptive families, the negative consequences of this disparity are clear. Evidence gathered by Home for Good and Adoption UK through the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence found that 60% of self-employed adopters reported that the absence of financial support directly limited the amount of leave they could take at the start of adoption, and in some cases it prevented them from taking leave altogether following the adoption. In practical terms, that means returning to work within days or weeks of placement, despite being advised by professionals that it is best for them to take time off work to be able to support their child once they are placed. One self-employed adopter summed up the pressure, saying:

“We have been through two separate adoptions. The second time I had no choice but to keep working. I sometimes took my son with me. It was very hard.”

The APPG’s research also found that around two thirds—63%—of prospective self-employed adopters said that the lack of statutory provision played a major role in delaying or preventing them from proceeding with adoption in the first place. Nearly half of self-employed adopters said that it prevented them from adopting again, while others explained that they could not consider adopting their child’s sibling because the financial impact of taking extended time away from work was simply too great. As a result, children are being unnecessarily separated from their siblings. One family said:

“We have already been approached to adopt another sibling and had to say no because there was no financial package available to help.”

Further research from the APPG found that the majority—59%—of self-employed adopters reported stopping work altogether for a period once a child was placed with them. They did so not as a lifestyle choice, but because the intensity of needs made continued self-employment impossible.

For many families, the absence of statutory provision creates profound pressure at precisely the moment the emotional and practical demands of adoption are at their highest. As one parent explained:

“Not having an equivalent to maternity allowance meant the pressure on us was increased, at a time when the pressure on our family was already very high. We didn’t have access to the kind of mental or financial ‘breather’ that a secure income for a set period might have given us. Inevitably it made the whole early placement period more stressful.”

That strain is reflected in reported anxiety levels among prospective self-employed adopters, who on average rated their financial worry during the adoption process a seven out of 10. Established self-employed adopters also report elevated anxiety, rating it a six out of 10, showing that stress does not end once placement is secured but often continues long afterwards in the absence of statutory support. Those findings must be understood within the broader context of adoption pressures; it is not just about parental leave.

As of September this year, 2,940 children with a placement order were waiting to be matched with an adoptive family in England, and average waiting times from entering care to placement with a family exceeded 20 months. If Government policy is deterring capable families from coming forward to adopt, this does not only disadvantage adopters themselves but, most importantly, directly affects the life prospects of children, who remain in temporary care arrangements for longer than necessary. That is in part because the system has made permanency through adoption unaffordable for too many who would otherwise open their home.

As I said at the start, the lack of statutory support for self-employed adopters cannot be considered in isolation from the adoption system as a whole. I am concerned that adoption is still treated as something that ends at placement, rather than as a responsibility that continues for a lifetime. Nearly all adoptive families say that more must be done to ensure that children feel safe and secure as they grow up, and over half report that support drops away once the adoption order is made.

There is cross-party recognition that adoption cannot be treated as a single moment in a child’s life. It is not simply a legal process that ends with an order; it is the beginning of a lifelong journey for both the child and the family that welcomes them. When we reduce adoption to a one-off placement, we overlook the ongoing needs that often emerge long after the order is made.

If we are serious about giving adopted children the best possible start, we must be honest about the nature of adoption itself. It is a lifelong commitment that requires consistent, compassionate and accessible support. Families should not have to fight for the help that allows their children to flourish. Adoption should be backed by a commitment from all of us to stand with these families not just at the beginning but throughout the years that follow.

Current practice too often fails adopted families at moments of vulnerability. Many adoptive parents report long waits for mental health services, difficulty accessing meaningful support, inconsistent local authority approaches and a lack of trauma-informed provision in schools. We need an adoption system that sticks with adopted children and their families over the long term and is flexible and responsive to their changing needs as they face challenges across these areas. These problems affect all adopters, employed and self-employed alike, but their financial impact is unevenly distributed. All of that is being compounded by the sudden and unexpected changes to the adoption and special guardianship support fund announced in April, which significantly reduced the post-adoption support many adoptive families reply on, including families in my constituency, contributing to a growing sense of uncertainty and a weakening of trust towards the system.

For families who cannot afford private help, the situation becomes even more difficult, and the financial strain quickly grows. Many simply have no way to cover the costs of therapy on their own. For the self-employed, the pressure is even greater because this burden arrives at the same time as the lack of statutory pay, leaving them with fewer options and even less stability. For self-employed adopters, the impact is even heavier, because any time taken away from work to help support children can immediately affect their income. When post-adoption support is withdrawn, they cannot rely on payroll to cushion the loss. Instead, they absorb it through missed work, reduced earnings and unpaid days spent trying to manage crises on their own.

Self-employed adopters are navigating a range of interconnected pressures that overlap, intensify each other and shape every part of their experience. Local authority practice reflects the same fragmentation. Support for self-employed adopters varies wildly depending on where families live. Freedom of information requests reveal that one third of councils have no policy in place at all to support self-employed adopters, and the remaining councils referred to using a means-tested approach to assessing the need for financial help. In those council areas, 90% of adopters were not informed that local support might be available. This produces an arbitrary system in which families adopting can experience different outcomes depending on postcode rather than need.

This Adjournment debate follows a recent Westminster Hall debate brought about by an e-petition on maternity and paternity pay, where Members, including me, explicitly raised the position of self-employed adoptive families. The Government have indicated that a review of parental leave and pay is under way and that the issues raised through the recent parliamentary debate will inform this process. If that review is to be taken seriously by adoptive families, it must look properly at the position of self-employed adopters, rather than letting their needs disappear into maternity and paternity reform more generally. Clarity is essential.

Adoption pay cannot be an optional extra. It ensures that adopters can establish stability, attachment and routine with a child who may have experienced disruption, neglect or loss. It enables parents to be present, rather than forced to divide their attention between the urgent demands of work and the equally urgent demands of care.

I know that the Minister cares deeply about these issues, which is why this debate is a good opportunity to raise them. First, will the review formally assess the position of self-employed adopters as a distinct category within the parental leave and pay review? Secondly, will the Government evaluate the introduction of a statutory entitlement equivalent to maternity allowance for self-employed adopters? Thirdly, can he provide an indication of the timescale for publication of the review’s findings? Finally, I urge the Government to reverse their disastrous decision to reduce the funding available through the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Policy choices must support adoption and adoptive families. Enterprise and self-employment should also be encouraged. Self-employed adoptive families should not be penalised. The removal of avoidable barriers to adoption, while enabling business to flourish, must be a priority.