PRIME Minister Keir Starmer is facing his first rebellion since winning the General Election due to his support for the two-child benefit cap.
An SNP amendment to the King’s Speech announcement, which will be voted on on Tuesday, asks MPs to “call on the Government, as a vital first step in tackling child poverty, to immediately abolish the two-child limit”.
Starmer and his Labour government have defended the two-child cap, which was brought in by the Tories, but MPs within the party – including former shadow chancellor John McDonnell – have said they will back the SNP amendment aiming to have it scrapped.
So what is the two-child benefit cap? And why is it so controversial?
What is the two-child benefit cap?
The two-child benefit cap is a policy brought in by the Tory-run UK government in 2015 which limits the benefits a person can claim for their third or subsequent children. It first came into effect in 2017, and is still being rolled out.
The cap currently affects around two-fifths of all families with three children or more – a number which will grow as the final third of the policy is rolled out, according to The Resolution Foundation. The charity said a total of 1.6 million children are directly impacted.
READ MORE: LIVE: Keir Starmer faces first rebellion threat over two-child cap
There are exceptions to the policy, such as if it can be proved that the third child is a product of rape.
However, this “rape clause” has proven incredibly controversial as it stigmatises children and forces women to try and prove to the UK Government that they were a victim of rape – an area where criminal prosecution is notoriously low.
Other exceptions exist, such as for adopted children and children born in a multiple birth.
Why are Labour having trouble with the cap?
Labour are finding themselves in controversy due their decision to keep the cap in place despite strong criticism from some of the party’s top brass while they were in opposition.
In 2020, now-Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said the cap was “obscene and inhumane” and that it “must go”.
However, now she is in government, Rayner has insisted that Labour “will not make unfunded spending commitments” and defended keeping the cap in place.
Starmer also called for the “punitive” two-child cap to be scrapped in 2020, but has since U-turned and defended the policy.
Other Labour MPs who had spoken out against the two-child limit are instead now looking to rebel against Starmer’s decision to keep it in place.
READ MORE: Pressure on Labour as SNP two-child cap amendment picked for Westminster vote
There are questions for Scottish Labour MPs, who as a group claim to support the removal of the two-child cap.
Anas Sarwar, their nominal leader, said earlier in July that the cap is “wrong [and] needs to be reversed”, but most Scottish Labour MPs are expected to ignore him and instead vote as Starmer instructs them.
How much would it cost to scrap the two-child limit?
Estimates on how much it would cost to scrap the two-child benefit cap vary, but the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has said that ending it would cost £1.7 billion per year and lift 300,000 children out of poverty.
The Resolution Foundation has said it would cost £2.5bn to scrap the cap "today", which would "rise to around £3.6bn a year, as more families are affected".
In Labour’s General Election manifesto, they projected a surplus of £2.5bn, leading to calls for them to fund the scrapping of the policy.
It is believed that it would be the single most efficient, and cost-effective, way to reduce child poverty across the UK.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here