A LABOUR MP has said that scrapping the two-child benefit is a “matter of political will” amid a growing party rebellion against the policy.
Speaking on the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme, Zarah Sultana also said that Labour can fund it "if we look at different tax decisions" and said that she wants the wealthiest to pay for it and that it’s not a "radical demand".
It puts further pressure on Keir Starmer to scrap the policy, which prevents parents from claiming universal credit or child tax credit for a third child with a few exemptions.
READ MORE: Nail bars and car washes to be targeted in immigration raid blitz
Writing in The Times, Canterbury Labour MP Rosie Duffield (above) also said the policy, introduced by then-chancellor George Osborne in 2015, was “sinister and overtly sexist” and had been the main reason driving her to stand for Parliament.
Duffield criticised the so-called “rape clause” which provides an exception for children conceived through an attack, saying: “The authors of this policy are telling women: disclose to a series of total strangers that your third or any subsequent children are the result of rape and we will pay you after all.”
Likening the policy to the dystopian society in Margaret Attwood’s novel The Handmaid’s Tale, in which women are deprived of their rights, Duffield said women were being “subjugated according to their social class”.
The new Government has already come under pressure to abolish the cap from campaigners, opposition parties and some of its own backbenchers, with some rebel Labour MPs and the SNP set to move an amendment to the King’s Speech calling for the policy to be scrapped.
The Government has announced a taskforce to develop a child poverty strategy, led by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall and Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, although many of the charities consulted by Kendall earlier in the week have also called for the cap to be abolished.
Ministers have previously suggested the state of the public finances means they cannot afford to abolish the cap.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves suggested the same on Sunday, saying it’s in Labour’s "DNA to lift children out of poverty" but refusing to make what she described as “unfunded spending commitments.”
Commenting, SNP MP and Deputy Leader at Westminster Pete Wishart (above) said: “The Labour Government’s refusal to scrap the two-child benefit cap is abhorrent and unjustifiable – and even their own MPs know it.
“For the new Chancellor to choose not to lift roughly 300,000 children out of poverty - and potentially prevent a further 670,000 from being harmed - is immoral and lays bare a real lack of determination to tackle child poverty.
“In stark contrast, the SNP government in Scotland has led the UK in tackling child poverty; introducing statutory targets and a range of additional benefits including the Scottish Child Payment, Best Start Grant and Baby Box.
“While the SNP in Government and at Westminster are ready and willing to work with this Labour Government where we believe it is in Scotland’s best interests, we will challenge them when we believe they are not going far enough.
“As long as the Labour Government continue this nonsensical refusal to scrap the two child cap, SNP MPs will call on them to change tact and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, immediately.”
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel