The benefit cap and the two-child limit overview

The Coalition government (2010–2015) and subsequent Conservative governments (2015; 2017; 2019) implemented a programme of austerity, ostensibly to reduce the public sector deficit, which included a raft of cuts to social security spending for working-age households (Taylor-Gooby, 2012; Edmiston, 2018). Key cuts included the introduction of the benefit cap and the two-child limit – the subject of this article – along with the introduction of Universal Credit (a new means-tested benefit for working-age people), the change to lower indexation for benefits uprating, the benefit freeze (2016–2020), and the introduction of Local Housing Allowances.¹ Women have been disproportionately affected by these cuts to social security benefits due to their greater receipt of such benefits (Rubery and Rafferty, 2014; Richards-Gray, 2020). Through assessing changes to the tax, wage and social security systems together, analysis by the Women’s Budget Group predicted that by 2021/2022, employed single mothers in receipt of Universal Credit would lose on average £4,933 per year, and unemployed single mothers would lose £7,000 per year (De Henau, 2018: 4). Many of the welfare reforms that the Coalition government and the subsequent Conservative governments introduced had the aim of increasing moves into paid work. At times, lone parents and the main carers of dependent couples of children have been the particular targets of activation policies (DWP, 2010). This considerably accelerates a shift in the social security system wherein mothers are expected to undertake paid work as their primary societal contribution, with the devaluation of unpaid care as one key outcome (Andersen, 2020).

The benefit cap was first introduced in 2013 at a level of £26,000 per family. Setting the cap at this level was based on median earnings after tax and national insurance contributions (DWP, 2012b). From November 2016, the cap was reduced and two different rates were applied: £23,000 per family living in London and £20,000 per family living in the rest of Great Britain. The benefit cap is applied to the total amount of benefits to which a household is entitled. Certain situations result in exemption from the benefit cap. In line with the aim of incentivising paid work, which is discussed later, households are exempt from the benefit cap if household earnings are £658 (which equates to approximately 16 hours of work per week paid at the National Living Wage) or more per month after tax and National Insurance contributions (DWP, 2022). There are also exemptions for people in receipt of certain disability-related benefits, including Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payment.

The two-child limit was announced in the Summer Budget of 2015. From 6 April 2017, the child element of Universal Credit and tax credits was restricted to two children (the policy does not apply to third and subsequent children born before 6 April 2017). There are several exemptions to the two-child limit including multiple births, adopted children, those living with kinship carers, and children conceived as a result of rape and during coercive relationships.

The benefit cap and the two-child limit have several aims, some of which they have in common. The stated aims of the benefit cap are to make the social security system fairer and more affordable, create financial savings and increase paid work incentives (DWP, 2012a). The government declared that the benefit cap was intended to ‘promote fairness between those in work and those receiving working-age benefits’ (DWP, 2012a: 1). Regarding paid work, the government claimed that by increasing incentives to undertake paid work, the benefit cap would bring about behaviour change and thereby reduce long-term dependence on benefits (DWP, 2017).

The two-child limit was also introduced with the stated aims of making the social security system fairer and more affordable (DWP, 2015). Additionally, the two-child limit has the distinctive aim of ‘ensuring those on benefits face the same financial choices around the number of children they can afford as those supporting themselves through work’ (DWP, 2015: 1). While incentivising paid work was not an explicit aim of the two-child limit, the government justified the policy within the wider context of labour market activation: ‘We aim to ensure that our policies encourage families to move into and progress in work where possible so that they have the best opportunity to move out of poverty and become self-reliant’ (HMG, 2019). The government anticipated that the policy would lead to more people looking for and entering paid work (Work and Pensions Committee, 2019a).

The DWP impact assessments for the two-child limit, the benefit cap and the subsequent lowering of the benefit cap all acknowledged that the policies would disproportionately affect women (DWP, 2016; 2015; 2012a). The impact assessment for the two-child limit did not provide any measures to mitigate this disproportionate impact on women. The impact assessments for the benefit cap and for lowering the benefit cap stated that the government was putting in measures to mitigate the range of disproportionate impacts of the policies (but did not specifically explain how the disproportionate gendered impacts would be addressed). The measures mentioned were increasing employment support and help with childcare costs, and providing exemptions, a grace period and Discretionary Housing Payments.² Therefore, particularly in respect of the two-child limit, there is a lack of justification for the fact that women are disproportionately impacted by the policies, an absence of investigation as to why women are more affected than men and a lack of mitigation measures to ensure that women in particular are not harmed by the policies. There has also been an absence of government research investigating how these policies are experienced and viewed by women. Such research is essential given that women are disproportionately affected by these policies and are already more likely than men to be in poverty (Reis, 2018).

Pre-existing gender analysis

Much of the pre-existing academic literature that examines the benefit cap and the two-child limit from a gender perspective focuses on court cases (Lammasniemi, 2016; 2019; O’Brien, 2019; Campbell, 2021a; 2021b; 2021c). Legal challenges have been made to both the benefit cap and the two-child limit on the grounds that they discriminate against women as more women are affected by these policies than men (CPAG, 2021; Campbell, 2021a). However, to date, these cases have been unsuccessful. While there was acknowledgement that these policies disproportionately affect women, this was deemed by the courts as justifiable given the perceived legitimacy of the government’s overall aims in introducing these policies (Campbell, 2021a; Hobson, 2022). These rulings have been heavily criticised from a gender perspective for considering the disproportionate impact on women as inevitable and failing to explore both the gendered structures that result in women’s greater propensity to experience poverty and the range of negative impacts of the policies on women (O’Brien, 2019; Campbell, 2021a; 2021b; 2021c). Key gender criticisms of the policies also raised in this literature include the perpetuation of the notion that mothers in receipt of benefits are deficient in their actions and behaviour, the devaluation of unpaid care work and the lack of recognition of gendered barriers to paid work. Campbell (2021a; 2021c) and O’Brien (2019) have also criticised the policies for attempting to regulate women’s reproductive choices.

The concerns raised about the disproportionate impact of the policies on women and their potential to push women into further poverty have also been made by several women’s and children’s charities (De Henau, 2018; Engender, 2019; CoE et al, 2022). Regarding the two-child limit, several charities also specifically focus on the operation of the exemption for non-consensual conceptions as women are required to disclose the non-consensual conception and have this verified by an approved third party (Engender, 2017; Women’s Aid, 2018). Charities have raised concerns that this re-traumatises women and forces them to disclose information about their private lives. As a result, women eligible for the exemption may not apply for it due to feelings of shame and fear of repercussions for their children.

Concerns have also been raised in both the academic and the charity literature about the intersection of the policies with ethnicity (Lammasniemi, 2016; Engender, 2019; Hall et al, 2017; Campbell, 2021a). As Hall et al (2017) note, gender inequalities intersect with, and exacerbate, racial inequalities, which means that Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) women are particularly vulnerable to cuts to benefits, such as the benefit cap and the two-child limit. The two-child limit inevitably directly affects families with three or more children and the benefit cap also disproportionately affects larger families (Work and Pensions Committee, 2019b). Larger families are more prevalent among the BME population and therefore, women from these backgrounds are more likely to be affected by the benefit cap and the two-child limit (Lammasniemi, 2016; Hall et al, 2017). This is particularly problematic given the discriminatory barriers BME women face in entering the paid labour market (Campbell, 2021a). Therefore, the policies have the potential to further the income inequalities BME women already experience.

Overall, while there is gendered analysis of the benefit cap and the two-child limit in addition to quantitative research investigating the fertility effects of the two-child limit (Reader et al, 2022) and some qualitative empirical research investigating the impact of these policies on families generally (DWP, 2014; CoE et al, 2022), there is little research exploring how women specifically experience these policies. Addressing this gap is particularly important given the salience of the concerns raised in the academic and charity literature, and the lack of government research investigating the impact of these policies on women. Therefore, this article reports on a gendered analysis of data generated from the qualitative longitudinal strand of the Benefit Changes and Larger Families project.

The Benefit Changes and Larger Families project: qualitative longitudinal approach

The qualitative longitudinal aspect of the Benefit Changes and Larger Families project aims to explore how families are coping with the changes the benefit cap and the two-child limit introduce and involves three rounds of semi-structured interviews with families subject to either or both of these policies. This article reports on findings from the first two rounds of interviews conducted in April–November 2021 and January–June 2022 respectively. The study was located in Yorkshire and London. A purposive sampling strategy was used: to take part in the study, participants had to be subject to at least one of the policies and to have three or more children. To ensure that a diverse sample was obtained, a sampling frame was created to ensure that participants with varying characteristics relevant to the policies (such as ethnic background) were included in the study. A variety of recruitment strategies were used including working with local authorities, primary schools and other gatekeeper organisations, snowballing, visiting local children’s centres and advertising on websites for parents. A total of 45 parents were recruited for the first round of interviews. This article draws on interviews with the 39 female participants, given that women are disproportionately affected by the benefit cap and the two-child limit, as mirrored in the sample. The main characteristics of these participants are detailed in Table 1. Thirty-five of the parents took part in the second round of interviews (31 of these participants were female).

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of the interviews were conducted over the phone. The first interview focused on the impacts of the policies on the participants’ household finances, health, children, relationships, motivation and effort to find paid work, and on strategies parents used to get by on a low income. The participants subject to the two-child limit were also asked about the policy’s influence on their fertility decision-making. The second interview guide included sections on changes in family life, paid work and benefit receipt since the first interview, changes in the impacts of the policies particularly in light of the cost of living crisis, the impacts of the policies on mental health and the participants’ housing situations. The interviews were all recorded with the participants’ permission and transcribed verbatim. The interview data was analysed thematically with themes pertinent to gender including ‘barriers to paid work’, ‘responsibility for children’ and ‘impact of two-child limit on fertility decisions’. Data from these themes has been drawn upon in this article to analyse whether, and how, the gendered concerns raised in the academic and charity literature are realised in the lives of women subject to the policies. A commitment to good ethical practice was prioritised throughout the study. The study obtained ethical approval from the University of York ethics committee and particular attention was paid to informed voluntary consent, confidentiality and anonymity, prevention of harm and reciprocity. Pseudonyms are used throughout this article to maintain confidentiality.

Mothers’ experiences of the benefit cap and the two-child limit

Key criticisms of the benefit cap and the two-child limit from a gender perspective were realised in the experiences of the mothers who took part in the Benefit Changes and Larger Families study. Through presenting analysis of data generated through the study, this section shows how these criticisms manifested in the mothers’ lives. First, there is an exploration of the gendered reasons for the disproportionate impact of the policies on women. Second, the ways in which the policies devalue unpaid care and fail to recognise gendered barriers to paid work are demonstrated. Third, the gendered harms these policies create are detailed.

Conclusion

Both the benefit cap and the two-child limit were introduced on the basis of promoting fairness between taxpayers in paid work and those receiving working-age benefits. Aside from the false binaries created in this rhetoric, this ignores the gendered reality that women are more likely to be in receipt of social security benefits, and more men than women pay tax through paid work (Richards-Gray, 2020) on account of gendered structural inequalities. A key societal gendered inequality is women’s disproportionate responsibility for unpaid care, leading to difficulties in engaging in the paid labour market. The implementation of these policies within the context of a lack of recognition of the reasons for women’s disproportionate reliance on social security benefits results in a double bind for women. They are both more likely to be subject to these policies and are also likely to find it particularly difficult to escape the benefit cap and make up the shortfall from the two-child limit by engaging in paid work. Therefore, rather than address a lack of fairness, these policies exacerbate the lack of fairness that women, and mothers in particular, routinely experience.

Findings from the Benefit Changes and Larger Families project evidence the gendered reasons why women are more likely to be subject to the benefit cap and the two-child limit, the devaluation of unpaid care, the lack of recognition of gendered barriers to paid work and ultimately, the financial impacts of the policies which have knock-on effects on women’s mental health and the amount of unpaid labour they carry out. The findings also suggest that there are implications for reproductive justice given that the two-child limit in particular is perceived to be an attempt to regulate low-income women’s fertility. Therefore, these policies harm women in multiple ways. The policies especially harm mothers with three or more children and can have particular repercussions for women from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Multiple forms of action are needed to address the negative impacts of the benefit cap and the two-child limit. As Richards-Gray (2020) argues in relation to the gendered austerity measures in general, it is vital to expose and contest the gendered discourses used to justify the policies. It is particularly important to examine the ways in which ‘fairness’ is deployed, and the silencing of unpaid care and valourisation of paid work within defences of the benefit cap and the two-child limit. Contesting these discourses and replacing them with ones that recognise structural gendered inequalities has the potential to lead to more gender neutral social security policies in the longer term (Richards-Gray, 2020). A key means of improving gendered discourses is to listen to mothers who are in receipt of social security to understand the reasons for, and their everyday experiences of, benefit receipt.

On a policy practice level, given the harms inadequate social security payments cause, and the gendered causes and nature of poverty, social security provision needs to be paid at a sufficient level that enables families’ material needs to be met and that also means that mothers can afford to undertake unpaid care should they choose to do so (Campbell, 2021a). A key first step towards this is removing the benefit cap and the two-child limit given that they further entrench societal gender inequalities and, in particular, women’s current susceptibility to poverty.

Funding

The project has been funded by the Nuffield Foundation under Grant WEL/43806, but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the Foundation. Visit www.nuffieldfoundation.org.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.