Scrapping two-child benefit cap is ‘unfair’ says Stockton MP

The policy, introduced under the Conservatives in 2017, was branded a political exercise in division between the “deserving and undeserving poor” during a debate in the Commons ahead of Tuesday’s vote which saw MPs vote 458 to 104, to scrap the policy.

Following the vote several Labour MPs in the region welcomed the policy’s proposed abolition, but a child poverty charity warned it was not a ‘silver bullet’ against deprevation.

Stockton’s Conservative MP, Matt Vickers, said: “Once again, Labour MPs across the North East have supported more benefits.  

“Speaking to people across Stockton, the vast majority do not want to see the two-child benefit cap scrapped.”

Mr Vickers, who serves as deputy chair of the Conservative Party, claimed the policy would cost almost £14bn over the next five years.

“Under this Labour government, people who get up early and work hard pay more and more in tax, whilst people who don’t work get more and more in benefits. It simply isn’t fair,” he added.

“The Conservatives will reduce welfare by £23 billion, so we can invest in the things that matter – getting more police on the streets, supporting people to own a home, and backing our small businesses.”

Labour had faced calls to scrap the policy since it came to power in summer 2024, but cited spending controls as a reason for not being able to ditch it immediately – indicating there would be no change without economic growth.

Seven Labour MPs were suspended by the party after backing an SNP motion to scrap the welfare measure in a vote in Parliament that year.

Following repeated calls from charities, campaigners and many of the party’s own MPs, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in the autumn budget last year that the Government would move to scrap the policy from April.

Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said the policy had seen children used as pawns for almost a decade.

He told MPs: “It (the policy) was never really about welfare reform, nor was it even about saving money.

“No, this was always first and foremost a political exercise, an attempt to set a trap for opponents, with children used as the pawns in the exercise.

“This was all about the politics of dividing lines, dividing lines between so-called shirkers and strivers, between the old distinction of the deserving and undeserving poor.”