The ‘two child limit’ was introduced by the Conservative government in the budget after their 2015 general election win. It prevents families with a third child born after April 2017 from receiving some of the welfare benefits payments specifically intended to provide for children. A low-income family with, for example, three children all born before April 2017 would receive payments through universal credit or child tax credits to support each of their three children.[1] An equivalent family with three children where at least one was born after April 2017 would receive payments to support only the first two.[2]
The Conservatives’ rationale for the ‘two child limit’ was that:
…those in receipt of tax credits should face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work.’[3]
This seems to have polled well. In 2024, YouGov asked:
Currently there is a two child limit on the number of children parents can claim child-related welfare benefits for. Do you think this limit should be kept, or should it be abolished?
60 per cent of the 2000 British adults surveyed replied that it, ‘Should be kept,’ while 28 per cent replied that it ‘Should be abolished.’ The proportion agreeing it ‘Should be kept’ is lower among Labour voters (50 per cent), in London (43 per cent), and among 18-24-year-olds (32 per cent).[4]
In the context of this general support for the ‘two child’ limit – but in the context also of a constrained economy and difficult decisions around public spending – Keir Starmer has so far backed its retention, suspending seven MPs who voted for the limit to be abolished.[5]
How has the ‘two child limit’ played out?
To what extent is support for the ‘two child limit’ underpinned by an understanding of the realities of its implementation? The policy was presented as being intended to influence ‘financial choices about having children’ – implying that parents would make rational, informed decisions about third and subsequent babies, in full knowledge of their situation now and in the future – and proceed to have a larger family only if their finances allowed.
Research has indicated, however, that numerous families who have had children since 2017 have not been aware of the ‘two child limit,’ and so it did not play into their decision-making.[6] Analysis also suggests that the impact of the policy on birth rates has been small: so it does not seem to have resulted in substantial numbers of families limiting the number of children they have by choice.[7]
Important also is the fact that the ‘two child limit’ applies to families who become newly low-income, or enter poverty – not just to those already receiving welfare benefits at the 2017 cut-off-point or expanding their family after it. So, for example, the third and subsequent children of parents who decide to have a third baby while economically secure and financially comfortable, but who unexpectedly become unemployed, are not protected, and are subject to the limit.[8]
In sum, then, the ‘two child limit’ policy does not seem to have had an impact on parents making active, informed choices, and extending or limiting their families as a result. It is also, arguably, unfair on larger families who find themselves falling into poverty through no fault of their own.[9]
In addition, its detail and the ways in which it has played out may not be fully understood by the general public. This means that popularity in polls may not reflect a true support for the policy. In response to a different 2024 YouGov poll, many of the general public surveyed (41%) considered there to be ‘too little support’ for ‘people on low incomes bringing up children.’ In potential contradiction to responses on the ‘two child limit’ question, far fewer (15%) agreed that there was ‘too much support,’ or ‘about the right amount of support’ (24%).[10]
Consequences of the ‘two child limit’
Instead of ‘limiting’ the birth of children, then, the ‘two child limit’ policy has limited the payments made to some low-income families: directly resulting in a higher number of children in these larger families living in poverty.[11] In April 2023, 1.47 million children in low-income families were affected by the two child limit.[12] 59 per cent of these families were working, and many of these not in work experienced illness or disability, or performed caring responsibilities.[13] The Resolution Foundation has shown a steep rise in poverty among families with three or more children, and estimates that by 2026-27, under the current regime, ‘the majority of children in large families may be living in relative poverty.’[14]
In itself, then, this deliberate, continued forcing of children into poverty is highly problematic – particularly now that the ‘two child limit’ policy has had time to play out, and evidence on its consequences is clear.[15] In terms of ‘fairness’ to children, it is hard to justify a strategy that penalises a child’s living conditions because they have more than one sibling.
In societal and economic terms, too, the policy is unwise. Accumulated research indicates:
…strong evidence that income has causal effects on a wide range of children’s outcomes, especially in households on low incomes to begin with.[16]
So by pushing children into or further into poverty, the ‘two child limit’ negatively impacts life chances – with research suggesting consequences for cognitive development and school achievement, social, emotional and behavioural development, and health.[17]
The reasons that poverty impacts children’s development and outcomes are many. Lack of money means that parents cannot afford to buy toys, books, and other resources and experiences for their children – and even the basics, including food and housing, may be unattainable.[18] Poverty and financial worries bring stress, ill-health and mental ill-health, which impacts the home environment and parenting.[19]
This conflicts directly with other aspects of government policy, which seek to level the playing field for families and children, so that they can reach their potential, and contribute to society and the economy.
What next?
Seven years after its introduction, evidence on the impacts of the ‘two child limit’ is abundant. It directly places increasing numbers of children in poverty; it does not appear to impact family planning decisions to any substantial extent; and it penalises not only those who have new babies after its introduction, but those whose financial situations worsen for reasons beyond their choice or control.
While polling suggests public opinion may still be in favour of the ‘two child limit,’ it is not clear whether the polled public are fully aware of what the policy entails. And, in contrast to many other issues, opinion across the spectrum of the policy world is frequently opposed to the limit, despite political leanings. Centre-right thinktank Onward, for example, ‘recommend the two-child benefit limit be abolished.’[20] The Centre for Social Justice, founded by Conservative MP and former Work and Pensions Secretary Ian Duncan Smith, argue that: ‘the focus should not be on the number of children per household.’[21] The Institute of Public Policy Research say the limit should be, ‘consigned to the scrapheap of history.’[22] The IFS conclude that ‘There are good reasons to reverse the two-child limit,’ despite ‘the long-term cost of reversing [that] would be about £3.4 billion a year.’[23]
As the first budget of the new Labour government approaches, the question looms: will this administration reverse the damage caused by their predecessors, and lay better foundations for all children, including those in larger families? Or will the ‘two child limit’ be allowed to continue, despite the harm we know it is causing to children?
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Lily Wielar for additional research
