The government is considering getting rid of the two-child benefit cap first brought in by the Conservatives.
The policy has caused considerable consternation within the Labour Party, with a growing number of MPs calling to scrap it and ministers so far refusing to.
We look at what the cap is and the controversy over it.
What is the two-child benefit cap?
Since 2017, parents have only been able to claim child tax credit and universal credit for their first two children, if they were born after April 2017.
An exception is made for children born as a result of rape.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:56
Child benefit reform ‘not off the table’
Who introduced it?
Then work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith first proposed the policy in 2012 under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government.
It was not until 2015 that then chancellor George Osborne announced a cap would be introduced from the 2017/2018 financial year.
The coalition said it made the system fairer for taxpayers and ensured households on benefits faced the same financial choices around having children as those not on benefits.
Image: David Cameron’s government introduced the cap, though he was out of office by the time it came in
What is Labour’s position on the cap?
The party has long been divided over the issue, with Sir Keir Starmer ruling out scrapping the cap in 2023.
He then said Labour wanted to remove it, but only when fiscal conditions allowed.
Following Labour’s landslide victory last July, the prime minister refused to bow to pressure within his party, and suspended seven MPs for six months for voting with the SNP to scrap the cap.
The publication of Labour’s child poverty strategy was delayed from the spring to autumn, fuelling speculation the government wants to use the next budget to scrap the cap.
Then the education secretary told Sky News on 27 May lifting the cap is “not off the table” – and “it’s certainly something that we’re considering”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:37
Why did Labour delay their child poverty strategy?
How many children does the cap affect?
Government figures show one in nine children (1.6m) are impacted by the two-child limit.
In the first three months Labour were in power, 10,000 children were pulled into poverty by the cap, the Child Poverty Action Group found.
In May, it said another 109 children are pulled into poverty each day by the limit, adding to the 4.5 million already in poverty.
The Resolution Foundation said the cap would increase the number of children in poverty to 4.8 million by the next election in 2029-30.
Torsten Bell, the foundation’s former chief executive and now a Labour Treasury minister, said scrapping the cap would lift 470,000 children out of poverty.
Image: Torsten Bell has warned against keeping the cap. Pic: Dimitris Legakis/Athena Pictures/Shutterstock
How much would lifting the cap cost the taxpayer?
The cap means for every subsequent child after the first two, families cannot claim benefits worth £3,455 a year, according to the Institute for Government.
It estimates removing the limit would cost the government about £3.4bn a year – equal to roughly 3% of the total working-age benefit budget.
It is also approximately the same cost as freezing fuel duties for the next parliament.
Research has found the indirect fiscal impacts of lifting the cap could be higher, as some data shows investing in young children can pay for itself by causing better outcomes for them later in life.
You probably recall the stories about Leicester’s clothing industry in recent years: grim labour conditions, pay below the minimum wage, “dark factories” serving the fast fashion sector. What is less well known is what happened next. In short, the industry has cratered.
In the wake of the recurrent scandals over “sweatshop” conditions in Leicester, the majority of major brands have now abandoned the city, triggering an implosion in production in the place that once boasted that it “clothed the world”.
And now Leicester faces a further existential double-threat: competition from Chinese companies like Shein and Temu, and the impending arrival of cheap imports from India, following the recent trade deal signed with the UK. Many worry it could spell an end for the city’s fashion business altogether.
Gauging the scale of the recent collapse is challenging because many of the textile and apparel factories in Leicester are small operations that can start up and shut down rapidly, but according to data provided to Sky News by SP&KO, a consultancy founded by fashion sector veterans Kathy O’Driscoll and Simon Platts, the number has fallen from 1,500 in 2017 to just 96 this year. This 94% collapse comes amid growing concerns that British clothes-making more broadly is facing an existential crisis.
Image: A trade fair tries to reignite enthusiasm for the local clothing industry
In an in-depth investigation carried out over recent months, Sky News has visited sites in the city shut down in the face of a collapse of demand. Thousands of fashion workers are understood to have lost their jobs. Many factories lie empty, their machines gathering dust.
The vast majority of high street and fast fashion brands that once sourced their clothes in Leicester have now shifted their supply chains to North Africa and South Asia.
And a new report from UKFT – Britain’s fashion and textiles lobby group – has found that a staggering 95% of clothes companies have either trimmed or completely eliminated clothes manufacturing in the UK. Some 58% of brands, by turnover, now have an explicit policy not to source clothes from the UK.
Image: Seamstresses in one of the city’s former factories
Image: Clothing industry workers in Leicester
Jenny Holloway, chair of the Apparel & Textile Manufacturers Association, said: “We know of factories that were asked to become a potential supplier [to high street brands], got so far down the line, invested on sampling, invested time and money, policies, and then it’s like: ‘oh, sorry, we can’t use you, because Leicester is embargoed.'”
Tejas Shah, a third-generation manufacturer whose family company Shahtex used to make materials for Marks & Spencer, said: “I’ve spoken to brands in the past who, if I moved my factory 15 miles north into Loughborough, would be happy to work with me. But because I have an LE1, LE4 postcode, they don’t want to work for me.”
Image: Shahtex in Leicester used to make materials for Marks & Spencer
Image: Tejas Shah, of Leicester-based firm Shahtex
Threat of Chinese brands Shein and Temu
That pain has been exacerbated by a new phenomenon: the rise of Chinese fast fashion brands Shein and Temu.
They offer consumers ultra-cheap clothes and goods, made in Chinese factories and flown direct to UK households. And, thanks to a customs loophole known as “de minimis”, those goods don’t even incur tariffs when they arrive in the country.
Image: An online advert for Chinese fast fashion company Shein
According to Satvir Singh, who runs Our Fashion, one of the last remaining knitwear producers in the city, this threat could prove the final straw for Leicester’s garments sector.
“It is having an impact on our production – and I think the whole retail sector, at least for clothing, are feeling that pinch.”
Image: Inside one of the city’s remaining clothesmakers
While Donald Trump has threatened to abolish the loophole in the US, the UK has only announced a review with no timeline.
“If we look at what Trump’s done, he’s just thinking more about his local economy because he can see the long-term effects,” said Mr Singh. “I think [abolishing de minimis exceptions] will make a huge difference. I think ultimately it’s about a level playing field.”
A spokesperson for Temu told Sky News: “We welcome UK manufacturers and businesses to explore a low-cost way to grow with us. By the end of 2025, we expect half our UK sales to come from local sellers and local warehouses.”
Thames Water, the UK’s biggest water provider, has been hit by a record fine by regulator Ofwat.
The company has been fined £122.7m following Ofwat’s “biggest and most complex” investigation.
It follows two investigations related to Thames Water’s wastewater operations and dividend payouts.
Of the total fine, £104.5m – 9% of Thames Water‘s turnover – has been levied for breaches of wastewater rules – just below the maximum 10% of turnover that Ofwat could have applied.
Another £18.2m penalty will be paid for breaches of dividend payment rules.
It is the first time Ofwat has fined a company for shareholders’ payments which do not “properly reflect” its performance for customers and the environment.
The fine will be paid by Thames Water and its shareholders, Ofwat said, rather than customers.
‘Unacceptable’ environmental impact
The regulator was highly critical of Thames Water’s handling of wastewater, describing it as having an “unacceptable” impact on the environment.
Its investigation of treatment works and the wider wastewater network uncovered failings which “amounted to a significant breach of the company’s legal obligations” and caused that unacceptable environmental impact.
The company announced a 40% spike in sewage spills in December for the period from January to September 2024.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:53
Thames Water boss can ‘save’ company
The fine was so large because Ofwat’s chief executive, David Black, said Thames Water “failed to come up with an acceptable redress package that would have benefited the environment”.
“This is a clear-cut case where Thames Water has let down its customers and failed to protect the environment,” Mr Black said.
“Our investigation has uncovered a series of failures by the company to build, maintain and operate adequate infrastructure to meet its obligations.”
As a result, Thames Water is required to agree to a remediation plan with Ofwat within six months.
Another investigation by the Environment Agency into environmental permits at sewage treatment works is ongoing.
Bad news for Thames Water finances
Thames Water serves 16 million customers across London and the South East and has just about fended off effective nationalisation, having secured an emergency £3bn loan. Its debts now top £19bn.
These fines were not factored into Thames Water’s financial planning for the next five years. The company’s chief executive, Chris Weston, told a recent sitting of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee that Thames Water’s future was dependent on Ofwat being lenient with fines.
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
A Thames Water spokesperson said: “We take our responsibility towards the environment very seriously and note that Ofwat acknowledges we have already made progress to address issues raised in the investigation relating to storm overflows.
“The dividends were declared following a consideration of the company’s legal and regulatory obligations. Our lenders continue to support our liquidity position and our equity raise process continues.”
You probably recall the stories about Leicester’s clothing industry in recent years: grim labour conditions, pay below the minimum wage, “dark factories” serving the fast fashion sector. What is less well known is what happened next. In short, the industry has cratered.
In the wake of the recurrent scandals over “sweatshop” conditions in Leicester, the majority of major brands have now abandoned the city, triggering an implosion in production in the place that once boasted that it “clothed the world”.
And now Leicester faces a further existential double-threat: competition from Chinese companies like Shein and Temu, and the impending arrival of cheap imports from India, following the recent trade deal signed with the UK. Many worry it could spell an end for the city’s fashion business altogether.
Gauging the scale of the recent collapse is challenging because many of the textile and apparel factories in Leicester are small operations that can start up and shut down rapidly, but according to data provided to Sky News by SP&KO, a consultancy founded by fashion sector veterans Kathy O’Driscoll and Simon Platts, the number has fallen from 1,500 in 2017 to just 96 this year. This 94% collapse comes amid growing concerns that British clothes-making more broadly is facing an existential crisis.
In an in-depth investigation carried out over recent months, Sky News has visited sites in the city shut down in the face of a collapse of demand. Thousands of fashion workers are understood to have lost their jobs. Many factories lie empty, their machines gathering dust.
The vast majority of high street and fast fashion brands that once sourced their clothes in Leicester have now shifted their supply chains to North Africa and South Asia.
And a new report from UKFT – Britain’s fashion and textiles lobby group – has found that a staggering 95% of clothes companies have either trimmed or completely eliminated clothes manufacturing in the UK. Some 58% of brands, by turnover, now have an explicit policy not to source clothes from the UK.
Image: Seamstresses in one of the city’s former factories
Image: Clothing industry workers in Leicester
Jenny Holloway, chair of the Apparel & Textile Manufacturers Association, said: “We know of factories that were asked to become a potential supplier [to high street brands], got so far down the line, invested on sampling, invested time and money, policies, and then it’s like: ‘oh, sorry, we can’t use you, because Leicester is embargoed.'”
Image: A trade fair tries to reignite enthusiasm for the local clothing industry
Tejas Shah, a third-generation manufacturer whose family company Shahtex used to make materials for Marks & Spencer, said: “I’ve spoken to brands in the past who, if I moved my factory 15 miles north into Loughborough, would be happy to work with me. But because I have an LE1, LE4 postcode, they don’t want to work for me.”
Image: Shahtex in Leicester used to make materials for Marks & Spencer
Image: Tejas Shah, of Leicester-based firm Shahtex
Threat of Chinese brands Shein and Temu
That pain has been exacerbated by a new phenomenon: the rise of Chinese fast fashion brands Shein and Temu.
They offer consumers ultra-cheap clothes and goods, made in Chinese factories and flown direct to UK households. And, thanks to a customs loophole known as “de minimis”, those goods don’t even incur tariffs when they arrive in the country.
Image: An online advert for Chinese fast fashion company Shein
According to Satvir Singh, who runs Our Fashion, one of the last remaining knitwear producers in the city, this threat could prove the final straw for Leicester’s garments sector.
“It is having an impact on our production – and I think the whole retail sector, at least for clothing, are feeling that pinch.”
Image: Inside one of the city’s remaining clothesmakers
While Donald Trump has threatened to abolish the loophole in the US, the UK has only announced a review with no timeline.
“If we look at what Trump’s done, he’s just thinking more about his local economy because he can see the long-term effects,” said Mr Singh. “I think [abolishing de minimis exceptions] will make a huge difference. I think ultimately it’s about a level playing field.”