Sir Keir Starmer has announced plans for a ministerial taskforce on child poverty, in a bid to see off growing dissent over the government's plans to keep the two-child cap.
However, the Prime Minister still faces the prospect of his first major rebellion with an SNP amendment to the King’s Speech calling for the benefit limit to be lifted receiving cross-party support.
The motion, which calls on the government to "immediately abolish the two-child limit" has been backed by the Greens, Plaid Cymru and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Kim Johnson, a Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, will also table an amendment calling for the cap to be removed.
READ MORE: MSPs appeal for calm in increasingly bad tempered race to replace Ross
It is up to Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle which amendments will get put to the vote next week.
Sir Keir’s significantly large majority means there is no chance of either of them passing, but the rebellion would be embarrassing for the Prime Minister.
The policy was brought in by George Osborne and took effect in 2017. It means that households claiming child tax credit or universal credit are unable to claim for a third or subsequent child.
When fully rolled out, it will affect one in five children, rising to 38% of those in the poorest fifth of households, according to recent research by the IFS.
Affected households on average will lose £4,300 per year, representing 10% of their income, according to the analysis.
In the press release announcing the new taskforce, Sir Keir said his ministers would “leave no stone unturned to give every child the very best start at life.”
He was asked about the cap in the Commons, with SNP Westminster Leader Stephen Flynn asking how many children will remain in poverty while the taskforce does its work, before it "will ultimately lead to the same conclusion we are proposing to stop the two-child benefit cap".
He added: “This is a policy – an iniquitous, heinous policy – which was introduced by the former Conservative government in 2015.
“Each and every one of us in this chamber knows that it retains children in poverty – hundreds of thousands of children across these isles.
“In Scotland alone, it impacts 27,000 households. It’s estimated that 14,000 children would immediately be taken out of poverty were it to be scrapped, but it was not mentioned in the Government’s programme for Government today.
“Instead, all we have heard is that a taskforce is going to be created – no timeframe for that taskforce, no indication of when that taskforce will conclude, and all the while, those children will remain in poverty.”
READ MORE: Explained: Which Bills in King's Speech apply to Scotland
Replying, the Prime Minister said: “I do not think there is a single Member who does not care about child poverty.
“The point of the taskforce is to devise a strategy, as we did when we were last in government, to drive those numbers down.
“It cannot be a single issue, but one that crosses a number of strands, and we will work with people across the House in order to tackle it.
“What matters is the commitment to drive those numbers down. That is what we did when last in government, and we will do it again.”
During the debate, Mr Flynn was asked by Labour MP Barry Gardiner why the Scottish Government had refused to mitigate the cap, despite having the power to do so.
He replied to say it was a question of where the the money should come from.
"Should it come from Scotland's NHS? Should it have come from our schools? To come from our police?"
He said the "constraints placed upon Scotland by this place do not afford us the opportunity to mitigate and quite frankly, I find that absurd and deeply disingenuous to suggest that the remit of Scotland's Parliament should be to mitigate Westminster."
Lifting the two-child benefit cap would cost somewhere between £2.5bn and £3.6bn in 2024/25, according to the Resolution Foundation, which said such figures are "low compared to the harm that the policy causes".
The Child Poverty Action group said the cap is "driving up child poverty more than any other policy" and scrapping it should now happen in the first budget.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel