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, MPs voted on whether to allow a bill to proceed that would require the government to publish a child poverty strategy including proposals to abolish the two-child limit on Universal Credit payments. The bill, introduced by SNP MP Kirsty Blackman under the Ten Minute Rule procedure (a mechanism allowing backbench MPs to seek permission to bring forward a bill), passed narrowly by 89 votes to 79. The two-child limit, introduced in 2017, restricts Universal Credit payments to the first two children in a family. Blackman's bill would compel the government to include plans to remove that limit as part of a child poverty strategy. In practical terms, the vote allows the bill to move to further parliamentary stages, though Ten Minute Rule bills face significant hurdles before becoming law. Blackman argued during the debate that 100 children a day are being pushed into poverty by the cap, and that the government had repeatedly delayed publishing a child poverty strategy despite a commitment from the Prime Minister in July 2024. The Conservatives voted unanimously against, with MP Peter Bedford arguing that removing the cap would undermine personal responsibility and fairness to taxpayers. Labour, despite holding a large parliamentary majority, had no votes recorded against and only 9 MPs voting in favour, with 352 Labour MPs recording no vote. The Liberal Democrats provided the largest bloc of support with 61 ayes. The SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, the SDLP, and several independents also voted in favour. The government's own position was not clearly expressed in the debate record.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the government to publish a child poverty strategy that includes abolishing the two-child benefit cap, arguing the cap pushes 100 children a day into poverty
Voting No meant
Oppose removing the two-child benefit cap, with Conservatives arguing the cap reflects principles of personal responsibility and fairness to taxpayers
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
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
—
0
0
42
Independent
—
4
1
8
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
Your 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
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