THE “unjust” two-child profit cap is, in effect, a “sibling penalty” and needs to be scrapped within the autumn Budget, greater than 170 church and charity leaders have argued.
In an open letter to the Chancellor, organised and published by Church Action on Poverty on Friday, they write: “The UK’s shared social security system needs to be just and effective. Yet, right away, the two-child limit is as a substitute creating an awesome injustice.
“It is, in point of fact, a sibling penalty. It punishes children for the undeniable fact that they occur to have a couple of brother or sister. Something that needs to be a joy — sibling companionship — is as a substitute held against children, denying them access to the opportunities, security and basic sustenance that every one children deserve and want.”
Among the signatories are Anglican clergy, churchwardens, and General Synod members, in addition to Roman Catholic bishops and clergy, and representatives of Methodist, Baptist, Quaker, and Pentecostal churches.
The letter points to government statistics on the social-security cap, which affects 1.6 million children in 440,000 households. Families are missing out on as much as £3455 a yr, it says. “There is widespread consensus that ending this policy could be the only best step the Government could take towards ending poverty, immediately freeing 300,000 children from poverty.”
The letter describes the policy, introduced by the Conservatives in 2017, as “futile” in relation to its original goals. “Above all, the policy is kind of simply unjust and unjustifiable. No child needs to be actively held back by the Government, and left worse off than their peers, just because of what number of brothers and sisters they’ve.”
The chief executive of Church Action on Poverty, Niall Cooper, said: “Churches have rightly spoken out against this unjust policy for a few years, and it’s encouraging that church leaders from a big selection of denominations are doing so again. . .
“The Chancellor should hearken to the growing consensus, the strong evidence, and the overwhelming moral imperative on this issue.”
