BORIS Johnson accidentally promised to undo the Tory Government's two-child limit on benefits when he was flummoxed by a question over the rape clause.
The Prime Minister surprised MPs when he branded the policy an “injustice” that needed rectifying.
The so-called rape clause has been controversial ever since it was first introduced as part of a reform to benfits by George Osborne back in 2015.
It means that any child born as a result of rape is exempt from the two-child limit to tax credits or universal credit.
In response to a question from Jeremy Corbyn, the Prime Minister seemed unaware of the existence of the two-child limit.
READ MORE: 'Rape clause' has affected 50 Scottish women, figures reveal
The Labour leader said he hoped the Tory chief's reply meant he was going to end the two-child policy.
But SNP MP Alison Thewliss, a long-term campaigner to end the clause, assumed Johnson had misspoken.
She tweeted: “My guess is he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The two-child limit and the rape clause stigmatise, impoverish and must be scrapped,” she had said.
A No 10 source later ruled scrapping the clause.
Having seemingly been proved correct, Thewliss said: “This is a Prime Minister woefully ignorant of the devastating policies that he voted for.
“The pernicious two-child limit forces families into a poverty trap and it must be scrapped along with the rape clause.
“It seems impossible that the Prime Minister can be unaware of the damaging impacts of such a policy given the number of charities, groups, cross-party members and others who have continually raised it over the past months and years.”
READ MORE: Ian Blackford: Johnson Government is prepared to crash economy
The Glasgow Central MP added: “The continued damage that this policy will inflict on families and communities across the UK is frightening, with CPAG estimating that ending the two-child limit would mean 300,000 fewer children in poverty by 2023/24 and would prevent one million children being pushed even deeper into poverty.
“The Prime Minister should keep his promise and ditch this wicked policy now.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel