Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The National (Scotland)
The National (Scotland)
National
Steph Brawn

Keir Starmer's child poverty plan ‘not credible’ if two-child cap remains

KEIR Starmer’s plans to reduce child poverty “will not be credible” if he does not co-operate with the Scottish Government and scrap the two-child benefit cap, leading campaigners and experts have said.

In a shock move, Finance Secretary Shona Robison announced in her Budget speech last week that from 2026 the Scottish Government would abolish the cap which prevents parents on Universal Credit from claiming support for any third or subsequent child.

The policy was brought in by the Conservatives in 2017 and has been kept in place by Keir Starmer’s administration – with the Prime Minister going as far as suspending several of his MPs when they voted to remove it earlier this year.

When Starmer was asked about the Scottish Government’s proposal, he claimed removing the cap was not a “silver bullet” to eliminating child poverty.

While campaigners agree it will not solve the issue on its own, they have said child poverty reduction targets simply cannot be achieved while the “egregious” and “stigmatising” policy remains in place.

Chris Birt, associate director for Scotland at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, told the Sunday National the Scottish Government’s decision has shown Starmer is making a political choice not to get rid of the cap.

He said: “This is a policy that is actively targeted to increase poverty. The current UK Government says they are going to bring in a Child Poverty Strategy next year. It will not be credible unless it includes getting rid of the two-child limit.

“Is it a silver bullet? No. Will it reduce poverty among families of more than two children? Yes, it will.

“The UK Government seems to swing between saying ‘we think this is morally unacceptable but we need to balance to books’ or ‘this won’t help’. Now if it’s the latter, they’re wrong. If it’s the former, well the Scottish Government has made this choice, so it’s a political choice and the UK Government could make the same political choice, and they should.”

In July, Starmer announced the creation of a ministerial taskforce to begin work on a Child Poverty Strategy.

Stephen Sinclair (below), a professor of social policy at Glasgow Caledonian University, said while getting rid of the two-child cap is not an exclusive solution to child poverty, it is a “serious” barrier to reducing it.  

(Image: NICK MAILER) “It’s not going to be sufficient in itself [removing the cap] but it’s going to be very difficult to meet the 2030 child poverty targets in Scotland without [lifting] both the two-child limit and separately the benefit cap, which has an additional negative compound effect on larger families.

“They are both very serious barriers the UK and Scottish Government face if they want to meet their 2030 targets.”

John Dickie, director of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, added: “It [removing the cap] is an absolute prerequisite for eradicating child poverty.

“There is no credible child poverty strategy that keeps the two-child limit in place –  across the UK it is driving over 100 children into poverty a day. It’s a child poverty-producing policy that has no place in a fair and just society.

“We don’t withhold healthcare or education from children just because they have two or more siblings so how can it be right to withhold the social security entitlements that are vital to supporting children’s health and wellbeing?”

The Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017 requires that, of all children living in Scotland, less than 5% are in combined low-income and material deprivation by 2030/31 and less than 5% are in persistent poverty by 2030/31.

Robison told MSPs that ending the cap in Scotland would lift 15,000 children out of poverty and the Resolution Foundation has estimated scrapping it in 2026 will lift around 28,000 children out of poverty by the end of the decade.

But Robison (below) did set out that implementation will require co-operation from the UK Government which holds the relevant data on the families that lose out as a result of the policy.

Sinclair said because of the negotiations that will be required, he was “encouraged but cautious” about the announcement by the Scottish Government.

He called on the UK Government to realise how expensive it is to keep children in poverty and follow suit in pledging to get rid of the policy.

“It’s disappointing we’ve not had a clear, vocal commitment from the UK Government that they are going to take away this very egregious policy, so the Scottish Government getting behind an initiative to remove it, going to the UK Government with proposals on how to do that, is entirely welcome,” he said.

“Every organisation that has campaigned against poverty has pointed to this as something that is ineffective and needs to be removed. It might be expensive but it’s expensive to keep children in poverty. The lifelong consequences of that are not only for their health and wellbeing but they are economic.”

While the pledge from the Scottish Government has been welcomed by campaigners, Dickie has argued families cannot wait until 2026 to see their incomes boosted by the removal of the policy.

He said there needs to be an immediate above-inflation increase to the Scottish Child Payment – a weekly payment of £26.70 that low-income families can claim for every child under 16.

“Increasing the payment to £30 a week would only cost £50 million but make a real difference to children and families,” he said.

“Increasing it to £40 a week – as called for by children’s charities, food banks and anti-poverty organisations across Scotland – would lift 15,000 children out of poverty, reduce the depth of poverty for many more and provide a protective buffer for families struggling just above the poverty line.

“A country as wealthy as Scotland can afford such action.”

However, while campaigners argue there are other measures that must be brought in to help struggling families as well as further investment in social security, there is agreement that the commitment to scrap the cap by the Scottish Government is a vital one.

Asked whether it was one of the biggest moves the Government has made in the devolution era, Birt said he thought there had been more impactful measures but still described it as “totemic”.

“I think the Scottish Child Payment is bigger in scale,” he said.

“There is something totemic about it though because the two-child cap is one of the worst parts of welfare reform as it puts children into poverty by virtue of having a brother or sister. That’s outrageous.

“So, I do think it’s a good thing that the Scottish Government has said they will do it. But I think it’s about time the UK Government starts to reverse these things, like the two-child cap and bedroom tax – all these stigmatising and horrible elements of the Universal Credit system.

“They are the responsibility of the UK Government and if they fix them that would free up resources in Scotland and the Scottish Government could focus on other things.”

A UK Government spokesperson said: “We will engage constructively with the Scottish Government where necessary.”

 “No child should be in poverty – that’s why our ministerial taskforce is exploring all levers available across government to give children across the United Kingdom the best start in life.

 “As we fix the foundations of the economy, we’re increasing the Living Wage, uprating benefits and supporting 700,000 of the poorest families with children by introducing a Fair Repayment Rate on Universal Credit deductions to help low-income families and make everyone better off.”

The Scottish Government has been approached for comment.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.