Child poverty strategy (removal of two child limit): Ten Minute Rule Motion
89Ayes
79Noes
Carried · majority 10477 did not vote
645 Members · Aye 89 · No 79 · DNV 477 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 16 September 2025, the House of Commons voted on a Ten Minute Rule motion calling for a child poverty strategy that would remove the two-child limit on benefits. The motion passed by 89 votes to 79. A Ten Minute Rule motion is a procedural device that allows a backbench MP to make a brief case for a new piece of legislation; it does not itself change the law, but a successful vote signals parliamentary sentiment on the issue. The two-child limit, introduced in 2017, restricts child tax credit and the child element of Universal Credit to the first two children in a family, meaning larger families receive no additional support for a third or subsequent child. Removing this cap would mean families with three or more children could claim full benefit entitlements for each child, directly increasing income for some of the lowest-income households in the UK. Child poverty campaigners have long argued the policy is a leading driver of child poverty; supporters of the cap argue it controls welfare spending and mirrors the choices working families face. This vote does not itself remove the limit, but it adds parliamentary pressure on the government. The vote divided sharply along party lines. The Conservatives provided 76 of the 79 no votes, with one Reform UK MP and one independent also voting against. Support came from the Liberal Democrats, who provided the largest bloc of aye votes at 61, alongside the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, the SDLP, one DUP MP, and nine Labour backbenchers. The Labour government itself did not whip its MPs to vote and the vast majority of Labour members were absent, reflecting the party's difficult internal position on a policy it has chosen not to immediately reverse despite longstanding pressure from its own left wing and anti-poverty campaigners. The nine Labour rebels who voted aye represent a visible, if small, expression of dissent within the governing party.
Voting Aye meant
Support introducing legislation to scrap the two-child benefit limit as part of a formal child poverty strategy
Voting No meant
Oppose scrapping the two-child limit, arguing it undermines personal responsibility and fiscal fairness
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
9
0
352
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
76
40
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
61
0
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
—
0
0
42
Independent
—
5
1
7
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
8
0
1
Reform UK
—
0
1
7
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
1
0
4
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Your Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
The two-child cap is cruel and must be scrapped immediately; it is the most cost-effective way to reduce child poverty and Labour has broken its promises by delaying action for over 426 days.SNP · Voted teller_aye · Read full speech (2,016 words) →
The two-child cap is fair to taxpayers and promotes personal responsibility; removing it would cost £4.5 billion and unfairly penalise working families who play by the rules.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,185 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0