Scrapping two-child benefit cap ‘not off the table', says Education Secretary
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said it is the 'moral mission' of the Labour Government to tackle child poverty as she described Reform UK as a party 'not on the side of working people'.
Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves are under pressure to respond to mounting calls for the two-child benefit cap to be axed at a cost of around £3.5 billion.
The policy means parents only receive support for up to two children through the universal credit system.
The Government's child poverty strategy, which was due to be published in the spring, is now set to come out in the autumn so it can be aligned with the Chancellor's budget.
Asked if she would 'scrap' the cap, Ms Phillipson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're certainly looking at it as part of the task force. As I say, nothing's off the table but this is not straightforward, the costs are high.
'When we came into Government we had to make some difficult decisions about how we got the economy back on a stable footing, because actually it's working people who lose out when you have that kind of instability that we saw under Liz Truss, when mortgage rates went up, rent went up as a result of all of the instability and the chaos.
'But I came into politics to tackle child poverty, to make sure that wherever you're from doesn't determine what you can go on to achieve in life, to break that link between background and success.
'That is the moral mission of this Labour Government. That is what we are all as a Government determined to deliver.'
She added: 'We'll set it all out later on this year, in the autumn. I think it's important that we get it right.
'So what we've heard from experts, from organisations, from those who are supporting families and children in poverty, is that they want a comprehensive strategy that addresses every aspect of how we can make sure that fewer children are growing up in poverty.'
On Tuesday Reform UK leader Nigel Farage is to make his 'pitch to working people' by committing to scrapping the two-child benefit cap and reinstating the winter fuel payment.
Ms Phillipson said Mr Farage's party is 'not serious'.
She told Sky News: 'Reform previously supported introducing, or the predecessor party, supported introducing the two-child cap.
'I don't think it's serious to suggest that millionaires should receive the winter fuel allowance, but we are committed to ensuring that more pensioners can benefit from the winter fuel allowance, as the Prime Minister said last week.
'Reform are the people that don't believe in the NHS, working people would be lost without the NHS. They don't believe in it in its current form. They don't believe in it into the future. They would seek to dismantle it as it exists now, free at the point of need.
'That's who Reform are. It's just not serious. They're not on the side of working people.'
Meanwhile, Conservative shadow chancellor Mel Stride said his party would not get 'carried away with this idea that Nigel Farage is a party of the right'.
He told Times Radio: '(The Reform) manifesto had £140 billion of giveaways in it, both tax and spending.
'They say they would have taken everybody earning up to £20,000 out of income tax altogether, at a cost of £60 billion. Not a shred of evidence that they have any way that they know how to actually fund that.
'And (Mr Farage) is now today standing up, he's going to say something about winter fuel payment and the two-child benefit cap, meaning that people can continue to have more children, and that will be funded and covered by the state – that is a left-wing position, and it also comes with a price tag of £5 billion between those two measures.
'He has not got a clue as to how any of that is going to be funded and we've seen that playbook before, and it doesn't lead to a good place.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
28 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
MPs share their own stories as assisted dying debate continues
Debating the proposal to roll out assisted dying in the UK, Sir James Cleverly described losing his 'closest friend earlier this year' and said his opposition did not come from 'a position of ignorance'. The Conservative former minister said he and 'the vast majority' of lawmakers were 'sympathetic with the underlying motivation of' the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, 'which is to ease suffering in others and to try and avoid suffering where possible'. But he warned MPs not to 'sub-contract' scrutiny of the draft new law to peers, if the Bill clears the Commons after Friday's third reading debate. Backing the proposal, Conservative MP Mark Garnier said 'the time has come where we need to end suffering where suffering can be put aside, and not try to do something which is going to be super perfect and allow too many more people to suffer in the future'. He told MPs that his mother died after a 'huge amount of pain', following a diagnosis in 2012 of pancreatic cancer. Sir James, who described himself as an atheist, said: 'I've had this said to me on a number of occasions, 'if you had seen someone suffering, you would agree with this Bill'. 'Well, Mr Speaker, I have seen someone suffering – my closest friend earlier this year died painfully of oesophageal cancer and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. 'So I come at this not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance.' Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh spoke int he assisted dying debate (House of Commons/PA) Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden Dame Siobhain McDonagh intervened in Sir James's speech and said: 'On Tuesday, it is the second anniversary of my sister's death. 'Three weeks prior to her death, we took her to hospital because she had a blood infection, and in spite of agreeing to allow her into intensive care to sort out that blood infection, the consultant decided that she shouldn't go because she had a brain tumour and she was going to die. 'She was going to die, but not at that moment. 'I'm sure Mr Speaker can understand that a very big row ensued. I won that row. 'She was made well, she came home and she died peacefully. What does (Sir James) think would happen in identical circumstances, if this Bill existed?' Sir James replied: 'She asks me to speculate into a set of circumstances which are personal and painful, and I suspect she and I both know that the outcome could have been very, very different, and the the moments that she had with her sister, just like the moments I had with my dear friend, those moments might have been lost.' He had earlier said MPs 'were promised the gold-standard, a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards', which were removed when a committee of MPs scrutinised the Bill. He added: 'I've also heard where people are saying, 'well, there are problems, there are still issues, there are still concerns I have', well, 'the Lords will have their work to do'. 'But I don't think it is right and none of us should think that it is right to sub-contract our job to the other place (the House of Lords).' Mr Garnier, who is also a former minister, told the Commons he had watched 'the start of the decline for something as painful and as difficult as pancreatic cancer' after his mother's diagnosis. 'My mother wasn't frightened of dying at all,' he continued. 'My mother would talk about it and she knew that she was going to die, but she was terrified of the pain, and on many occasions she said to me and Caroline my wife, 'can we make it end?' 'And of course we couldn't, but she had very, very good care from the NHS.' Conservative MP Mark Garnier said he would back the Bill (PA) Mr Garnier later added: 'Contrary to this, I found myself two or three years ago going to the memorial service of one of my constituents who was a truly wonderful person, and she too had died of pancreatic cancer. 'But because she had been in Spain at the time – she spent quite a lot of time in Spain with her husband – she had the opportunity to go through the state-provided assisted dying programme that they do there. 'And I spoke to her widower – very briefly, but I spoke to him – and he was fascinating about it. He said it was an extraordinary, incredibly sad thing to have gone through, but it was something that made her suffering much less.' He said he was 'yet to be persuaded' that paving the way for assisted dying was 'a bad thing to do', and added: 'The only way I can possibly end today is by going through the 'aye' lobby.' If MPs back the Bill at third reading, it will face further scrutiny in the House of Lords at a later date.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Will Emily Maitlis now apologise to Rupert Lowe?
The News Agents podcasters appear increasingly less focused on facts and more on taking a pop at people who hold different views to them. Ex-Reform man Rupert Lowe was a recent casualty. He was invited onto the podcast to speak to Maitlis – who wasted no time in tearing into him, going so far as to suggest the independent parliamentarian was 'racist' after he spoke about Pakistani grooming gangs. But after the publication of Baroness Casey's review this week, it would appear Maitlis is due a rather large slice of humble pie… On the episode, Maitlis asked Lowe quizzically: 'Why do you only talk about Pakistani grooming gangs? There are ten times as many white grooming gang suspects.' She then added: 'You are focusing on Pakistani grooming gangs because, probably, you're racist.' Er, right. Mr S wonders what exactly Maitlis made of Casey's review this week, then. It suggests that, where ethnicity data was logged (in around a third of the cases of group-based child sexual exploitation) there was an overrepresentation of Asian and Pakistani men. And, as Mr S has written before, Pakistani men are up to five times as likely to be responsible for child sex grooming offences than the general population, according to figures from the Hydrant Programme, which investigates child sex abuse. Around one in 73 Muslim men over 16 have been prosecuted for 'group-localised child sexual exploitation' in Rotherham, research by academics from the universities of Reading and Chichester has revealed. How very interesting… So will Maitlis now apologise to Lowe over her attack? Don't hold your breath…
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Assisted dying Bill not now or never moment, says Cleverly ahead of crucial vote
The House of Commons is debating a Bill to change the law in England and Wales, ahead of a crunch afternoon vote. The outcome would lead to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either clearing the House of Commons and moving to the Lords, or falling completely – with a warning the latter could mean the issue might not return to Westminster for a decade. The relatively narrow majority of 55 from the historic yes vote in November means every vote will count on Friday. Some MPs have already confirmed they will switch sides to oppose a Bill they describe as 'drastically weakened', after a High Court judge safeguard was scrapped and replaced with expert panels. As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and the three-member panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has insisted the multidisciplinary panels represent a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications. Opening her debate, Ms Leadbeater said her Bill is 'cogent' and 'workable', with 'one simple thread running through it – the need to correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. She pushed back on concerns raised about the Bill by some doctors and medical bodies, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), noting: 'We have different views in this House and different people in different professions have different views.' She noted that all the royal colleges have a neutral position on assisted dying. Some members of RCPsych also wrote recently to distance themselves from the college's criticism of the Bill and pledge their support for it. MPs have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines – although voting is not mandatory and others present on Friday could formally abstain. Ms Leadbeater warned that choosing not to support the assisted dying Bill is 'not a neutral act', but rather 'a vote for the status quo'. Repeating her warning that the issue is unlikely to be broached again for a decade if her Bill fails, she told the Commons: 'It fills me with despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years' time hearing the same stories.' But, leading opposition to the Bill, Conservative former minister Sir James said while this is 'an important moment', there will be 'plenty of opportunities' in future for the issue to be discussed. Sir James said: 'I disagree with her (Ms Leadbeater's) assessment that it is now or never, and it is this Bill or no Bill, and that to vote against this at third reading is a vote to maintain the status quo. 'None of those things are true. There will be plenty of opportunities.' The Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no, but only if all other MPs voted the same way as in November, including those who abstained. Ms Leadbeater this week appeared to remain confident her Bill will pass, acknowledging that while she expected 'some small movement in the middle', she did not 'anticipate that that majority would be heavily eroded'. All eyes will be on whether Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and senior colleagues continue their support for the Bill. Sir Keir indicated earlier this week that he had not changed his mind since voting yes last year, saying his 'position is long-standing and well-known'. Downing Street declined to 'speculate on the PM's movements today' when asked about his attendance at the Commons debate. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described Ms Leadbeater's work on the proposed legislation as 'extremely helpful', but confirmed in April that he still intended to vote against it. Ahead of the debate, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch urged her MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide'. A vote must be called before 2.30pm, as per parliamentary procedure. Friday's session began with considerations of outstanding amendments to the Bill, including one to prevent a person meeting the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking'. The amendment – accepted without the need for a vote – combined with existing safeguards in the Bill, would rule out people with eating disorders falling into its scope, Ms Leadbeater has said. Another amendment, requiring ministers to report within a year of the Bill passing on how assisted dying could affect palliative care, was also approved by MPs. Marie Curie welcomed the amendment, but warned that 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need' and urged a palliative care strategy for England 'supported by a sustainable funding settlement – which puts palliative and end of life care at the heart of NHS priorities for the coming years'. Supporters and opponents of a change in the law gathered at Westminster early on Friday, holding placards saying 'Let us choose' and 'Don't make doctors killers'. Among the high-profile supporters were Dame Prue Leith, who said she is 'quietly confident' about the outcome of the vote, and Dame Esther Rantzen's daughter Rebecca Wilcox. Opposition campaigner and disability advocate George Fielding turned out to urge parliamentarians to vote no, saying: 'What MPs are deciding on is whether they want to give people assistance to die before they have assistance to live.' A YouGov poll of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, surveyed last month and published on Thursday, suggested public support for the Bill remains at 73% – unchanged from November. The proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle has risen slightly, to 75% from 73% in November.
