In a recent interview with iNews, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) boss Liz Kendall doubled down on the Labour Party’s refusal to commit to scrapping the controversial two-child benefit cap—despite conceding the dire toll it has taken on children and families.
Her statements, cloaked in promises of future action, reveal a troubling unwillingness to address one of the UK’s most harmful DWP policies. Moreover, it comes just as the government is set to throw even more children into poverty with its cuts to welfare.
The DWP two-child benefit cap: the most cruel of policies
Kendall declared “child poverty will be going down,” and admitted it would be a “personal failure” if poverty levels rise under her tenure.
Yet these assertions ring hollow when set against her refusal to abolish a DWP policy directly linked to rising deprivation. The two-child benefit limit, introduced under David Cameron’s coalition government, prevents families on DWP Universal Credit or Tax Credits from claiming additional support for a third or subsequent child. It disproportionately penalises larger families, often already living in hardship, and drives many deeper into poverty.
Kendall insisted:
Our whole approach is to say we will only make promises if we show we can afford it and how we’re going to commit to them. I’m not into a wing and a prayer, I’m into solid action. People deserve that and you’ll just have to wait until we publish our child poverty strategy.
However, this financial caution fails to grapple with the ethical and economic cost of child poverty. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), lifting the cap would raise 540,000 children above the absolute poverty line at a cost to the DWP of £2.5 billion annually.
That cost pales in comparison to the long-term societal and fiscal costs of poverty-related outcomes: poor health, lower educational attainment, and reduced lifetime earnings.
An admission of guilt
Kendall’s defensive stance is all the more galling given her own acknowledgment of the cap’s devastating consequences.
She told iNews:
I’ve seen the impact in Leicester that it’s had – that and a whole series of things – on child poverty. I’ve got one in three kids in my constituency growing up poor, and the lifelong consequences of that are unacceptable. It is one of the reasons I came into politics.
Yet even this deeply personal framing did not translate into policy commitment.
Her additional assertion—“I campaigned my whole life to give children an equal start, and that is what I’m determined to deliver on”—feels disingenuous when weighed against the current DWP trajectory.
Recent welfare cuts, also spearheaded by Kendall, are expected to push an additional 50,000 children into poverty. However, even this figure is not accurate, as it’s from the DWP itself – and it likely to be far higher.
Blah, blah, blah
Her defence that a £1bn employment support package “is absolutely designed to give people an opportunity and a pathway out of poverty” does little to allay concerns, especially when the direct benefits of removing the DWP two-child limit are so clearly measurable.
Moreover, the decision to grant iNews an exclusive interview—on a site that places content behind a paywall—raises questions about transparency and accessibility.
Low-income families most affected by these DWP policies are the least likely to have access to such subscription-based media. If Kendall is sincere in her claim that “people deserve” solid action, the messaging—and more importantly, the decision—should be available to all.
The DWP’s vague line that the cap will be lifted “when the economic situation allows” is equally unconvincing. After nearly a decade of economic damage inflicted on families through austerity, this indefinite postponement seems less like fiscal responsibility and more like political cowardice.
The DWP two-child benefit cap: regressive and cruel in the extreme
The two-child limit is not only cruel, it is inefficient and self-defeating. It punishes children for the size of their families, undermines efforts to reduce child poverty, and exacerbates inequality. That Labour refuses to commit to reversing it, despite prior opposition and overwhelming evidence of harm, is a betrayal of its own values.
Liz Kendall may talk about “solid action” and “equal starts,” but until she commits to lifting this regressive DWP cap, her words are just that: talk.
Featured image via the Canary
