The Government aims to reduce child poverty through the Child Poverty Reduction Act. It seeks to lift children out of poverty by removing the universal credit two-child limit, which will affect 560,000 families and provide an average increase of £5,310 per year. The MP emphasises that reducing child poverty is essential for improving life chances and economic prospects.

The SNP Member questions whether the Department has adequate data on subsequent children to ensure timely extra payments, highlighting a concern about the implementation's effectiveness.

Welcomes the Government’s measures and queries if the measures will encourage more people to have children in Northern Ireland, where the fertility rate is below replacement level.

Supports additional clauses that aim to generate data on the welfare cap’s impact on children and calls for removing it to ensure children are not held back in poverty.

Ms Smith argues against scrapping the two-child limit, stating it upholds fairness and discourages dependency. She highlights that poverty decreased under the previous government and criticises Labour for increasing unemployment and reducing job opportunities for young people. She emphasises that work is a transformative route out of poverty and that scrapping the cap sends an unfair message to working parents.

Scrapping the two-child limit in full remains the single most impactful step we can take to reduce child poverty, and will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030. It is around £3 billion a year, but child poverty costs the UK economy £39 billion annually—more than 10 times as much. Investing £3 billion to reduce a £39 billion problem is not reckless spending; it is highly targeted and cost-effective with long-term returns. The two-child limit has had no measurable impact on family planning or fertility rates, and punishes children who are already here. Every child deserves enough food, a safe home and a fair start in life. Six in 10 children affected by the two-child limit live in households where at least one parent works.

Reversing the decision on the two-child limit will lift 540,000 children out of absolute poverty. This change is worth up to £5,000 per year for each of the more than 500 families in my constituency who have been impacted by the cap. It has a huge economic cost and investing now for great gains later is very sensible. The Bill should be an absolute priority to address overall levels of child poverty, destitution and deep poverty among households with children, as well as educational outcomes and physical and mental health outcomes.

Supports the removal of the two-child limit but argues that the overall benefit cap still traps children in poverty. Cites statistics from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation indicating 141,000 children won't see full benefits and 50,000 will remain impoverished due to the cap. Emphasises the need to address poverty through comprehensive measures including welfare reform, free school meals, and support for disabled families.

Calls for a full assessment of the impact on families left in poverty by the overall benefit cap within six months. Argues that removing exemptions, especially for disability benefits, exacerbates inequality. Supports new clauses 1, 3, and 4 to mandate data collection and analysis on impacted constituencies and families.

McDonnell argues that new clause 4 seeks to address the limitations of the Bill by highlighting the need for further action on the overall benefit cap. He cites figures showing 150,000 children are affected and emphasises the importance of timely Government response to these issues.

[INTERVENTION] Debbie Abrahams interjects to inform McDonnell that the Education Committee's child poverty strategy inquiry will address the issues raised in his amendment.

[INTERVENTION] Alicia Kearns interjects to mock the idea that there is no money left, reinforcing Conservative views on financial management.

Nokes speaks in support of amendments 1 and 2, arguing that lifting the two-child cap will lead to an unfair redistribution of wealth from hard-working families to those who do not work.

Leishman supports the new clause, citing deep poverty in his constituency. He argues for bolder political choices to address decades of de-industrialisation and inequality, including an annual wealth tax on the wealthiest to fund public services.

Supports new clause 1 to end the two-child limit on welfare benefits, arguing that it will reduce child poverty and deep poverty. Emphasises the limitations imposed by the benefit cap and calls for its removal alongside the two-child limit to ensure full benefits for affected families.

Speaks in favour of the Bill, against amendment 1. Argues that forcing women to prove rape for welfare benefits is cruel and indefensible. She also refutes the narrative that families affected by the two-child limit are irresponsible or lazy. Emphasises that removing these policies will improve health, education, and long-term opportunities for children.

Supports all three new clauses. Argues against the benefit cap and its impact on disabled families. Emphasises the importance of monitoring child poverty measures to ensure they are effective in improving school readiness and reducing destitution. Criticises the Government's lack of ambition in tackling child poverty.

He supports scrapping the two-child limit, arguing it enhances work incentives and improves child welfare outcomes. He acknowledges the need for monitoring reports on the impact of policy changes, such as those related to the benefit cap and disabled family members in poverty.

[INTERVENTION] He pointed out a contradiction in the government's argument regarding work incentives, suggesting that lifting people out of poverty is not inherently a disincentive to work.

[INTERVENTION] She inquired about the specific impact on families entering the benefit cap due to the removal of the two-child limit, highlighting concerns over new households becoming disadvantaged.

[INTERVENTION] She raised concerns about potential denials of disability benefits affecting families' eligibility for exemptions and falling into the benefit cap.

[INTERVENTION] She pointed out issues with tracking auto-enrolment for free school meals in local councils, questioning the effectiveness of current reporting mechanisms and highlighting disparities in implementation.

Ms Whately contends that lifting the two-child cap is unfair to responsible citizens who make sacrifices to support their families without financial aid. She highlights that while some families may benefit financially from this change, it adds £3 billion annually and £14 billion over five years to welfare costs, potentially harming economic stability and job creation.

Ms Blackman strongly supports removing the two-child cap as it ensures children can have adequate food, warmth, and clothing. She criticises the previous system for its inhumane practices, such as requiring rape victims to disclose their assault for exemptions. She emphasises that the policy change will improve life chances and reduce poverty for children.