Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill: Second Reading
458Ayes
104Noes
Carried · majority 354 · Government won84 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 458 · No 104 · DNV 84 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 3 February 2026 to give the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill its Second Reading, passing it by 458 votes to 104. A Second Reading is the first substantive vote on a bill, approving its general principles and allowing it to proceed to further scrutiny. The bill would remove the two-child limit introduced in April 2017, which restricts Universal Credit child-element payments to a maximum of two children per household. From assessment periods starting on or after 6 April 2026, payments would be calculated to include all children in a household, regardless of how many there are. The practical effect of the bill is significant. The government estimates around 300,000 children would be lifted out of poverty as a result, at an estimated cost of £3 billion per year by 2029/30. The policy applies to England, Scotland and Wales, with equivalent provision for Northern Ireland. Roughly 60 per cent of families currently affected by the limit are in work, and the government argued that around half of those who would benefit were not receiving Universal Credit at all when their children were born, meaning the limit had penalised families whose circumstances changed after family-size decisions had already been made. The vote divided largely along party lines. All 324 Labour MPs and all 36 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the bill, as did all voting Liberal Democrats (62), SNP members (8), Plaid Cymru members (4), Green Party members (4) and Democratic Unionist Party members (4). All 99 voting Conservatives opposed it. Reform UK split, with 5 voting against and 2 voting for, a division Pat McFadden noted from the despatch box, pointing out that the party's new member Suella Braverman had previously called for the limit to be abolished. No vote was recorded for 37 Labour MPs, 17 Conservatives and 10 Liberal Democrats.
Voting Aye meant
Support removing the two-child limit on Universal Credit, lifting around 300,000 children out of poverty at an estimated cost of £3 billion a year by 2029/30.
Voting No meant
Oppose removing the two-child limit, arguing the state should not subsidise larger families and that individuals should take financial responsibility for decisions about family size.
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
324
0
37
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
99
17
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
61
0
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
36
0
6
Independent
—
10
1
2
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
8
0
1
Reform UK
Whipped No
2
5
1
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
2
0
0
Your Party
—
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
1
0
0
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
0
1
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 limit was always a political exercise; removing it is essential as it will lift hundreds of thousands of children from poverty and is funded through fraud savings, Motability reforms, and gambling tax changes.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,006 words) →
The two-child limit was a principled policy reflecting individual responsibility; removing it forces working people to pay higher taxes while subsidising choices others cannot afford.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (153 words) →
The cap is fair and necessary; lifting it creates a poverty trap where households receive more in untaxed benefits than working families earn, disincentivises work, and represents a U-turn driven by Prime Minister weakness.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,578 words) →
Child poverty causes measurable harm including infant mortality and neurological damage; the Conservatives ignored repeated warnings and this Bill is a crucial first step, though more must be done.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,363 words) →
The two-child limit is Dickensian and morally bankrupt; children are not responsible for circumstances beyond their control and deserve support to reach their potential.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (998 words) →
Poverty is conquered by work, education and ambition, not cheque books; this Bill abandons financial responsibility, weakens welfare legitimacy, and lacks any strategy for moving people into employment.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (1,143 words) →
The SNP has been consistent in opposing the two-child cap; this removal is necessary but insufficient without deeper ambition to match Scottish child poverty policies and targets.SNP · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,132 words) →
Teachers and families are struggling; removing the cap alongside broader measures like expanded childcare and workers' rights creates a comprehensive anti-poverty strategy.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,180 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0