The first king’s speech of the new Labour government set out a wide-ranging legislative programme. There was lots to welcome, such as a new deal for workers and a child wellbeing bill. But there were also some very notable absences.
Most significantly, there was almost nothing on social security and the government has not, as yet, committed to getting rid of the poverty-producing and harmful two-child limit on benefits.
The two-child limit restricts means-tested government support to just the first two children in a household. It applies to families whether or not someone in the household is in work. The most recent figures show that one in nine children across the UK live in households affected by the limit.
The government’s failure to axe the two-child limit has provoked consternation from Labour backbenchers and from MPs from other parties. The SNP has plans to table an amendment to the king’s speech to end the limit.
The continuation of the limit is also deeply disappointing for researchers and activists who work on poverty. There is a mass of evidence on the harm this policy causes. The two-child limit has been a key driver of child poverty in recent years and will continue to be in the future if it stays.
My own research with colleagues at the universities of York, Oxford and LSE shows the harm this policy causes. Parents report having to make almost impossible choices on a day-to-day basis: how to tell their children they just don’t have the few pounds for an after-school club; which child’s needs to prioritise when both urgently need some new clothes.
Our analysis also shows that the policy is internationally unusual. No other European country caps means-tested support at two children. The policy places the UK with a small number of European countries where help for children is contingent on the behaviour of their parents. It’s what we describe as adult-behaviour-orientated policies.
The two-child limit causes real and lasting material harm, but it also matters symbolically. Every day that it remains in place the suggestion is made that those children who do not receive support simply do not count, and state funds are better targeted elsewhere.
This should not be about politics. Every single member of the House of Commons should be ready to stand up and say, resoundingly, kids in poverty do matter, and we want to do what we can to allow them to live fulfilled and happy childhoods.
When we asked parents what they thought of the two-child limit, one of our participants, Kalima, spoke for many when she said:
It’s not fair on the kids … being a single parent it affects the kids anyway and then having that financial burden on top, it’s not nice and our kids are our future.
Following the king’s speech, Labour announced a child poverty taskforce which will jumpstart work to develop a strategy for child poverty. This is to be welcomed, and it can only be hoped that the ministerial team will listen closely to taskforce members who are likely to speak as one and with a resounding message on the two-child limit: it simply has to go if Labour are to meet their commitment to reducing record rates of child poverty.
But getting rid of the two-child limit should be only the beginning. Research I’ve conducted into everyday experiences of poverty and social security over the last 15 years sets out very clearly how the hollowing out of provision and successive rounds of retrenchments and cuts have left a system which is simply not fit for purpose.
Social security can and should be seen as an investment. It’s something which matters to all of us, and can be there for all of us, in times of need across our lives.
Getting rid of the two-child limit needs to be just one part of a wider agenda on social security. This agenda needs to include action to shore up and invest in social security support, and efforts to ensure that those receiving benefits experience dignified and respectful treatment. Their contributions and place in society – as parents, carers, disabled people and often as workers, too – should be recognised and valued.
The government may have a lot on its plate, but the two-child limit really needs attention. The nation’s children facing poverty simply cannot wait.
Ruth Patrick receives funding from Nuffield Foundation and from The Robertson Trust. She is a Member of the Labour Party.
