Division · No. 305Tuesday, 16 September 2025Commons Child Poverty

Child poverty strategy (removal of two child limit): Ten Minute Rule Motion

89
Ayes
79
Noes
Passed
477 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** 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. **Why it matters:** 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 politics:** 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
§ 01Who voted how.168 voting members · 477 absent
Aye95No78DID NOT VOTE · 477

168 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 477 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
9
0
353
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
76
40
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
61
0
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
0
0
42
Independent
5
1
7
Scottish National PartyWhipped 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 WalesWhipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
3
0
1
Social Democratic and Labour Party
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
Your Party
1
0
§ 02From the debate.2 principal speakers
Kirsty BlackmanSupportiveAberdeen North
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)
Peter BedfordOpposedMid Leicestershire
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0