Reform UK has found itself at the centre of a fierce political storm after being labelled racist by MPs from across the political spectrum. The controversy stems from the party's position on the contentious two-child benefit cap, with Reform arguing that any lifting of the restriction should apply exclusively to families where both parents are British citizens engaged in full-time employment.
Cross-Party Condemnation of Reform's Stance
Sian Berry, the Green Party MP representing Brighton Pavilion, delivered a particularly scathing assessment during parliamentary proceedings. She told fellow MPs that she wished to "utterly reject the racist agenda of the Reform members' objections" to broader changes to the benefit cap system.
Labour's Andrew Pakes, who serves as MP for Peterborough, went even further in his criticism, describing Reform's proposed policy as "naked racism" and "an affront to British values". The strong language reflects the depth of opposition to what many perceive as discriminatory welfare proposals.
Conservative Criticism and Personal Perspectives
Kit Malthouse, a Conservative former minister who served as education secretary under Liz Truss, launched a particularly personal attack on Reform's position. He accused the party of "calling for open discrimination in our welfare system against those who do not have entirely or parents who were born entirely in this country".
Mr Malthouse revealed that his own children would be affected by such a policy, stating: "I declare an interest that includes my children, two of my children not born to a British citizen. It also includes the children of Members of Parliament who sit for the Reform Party." He added what he described as the "grotesque" nature of "seeking legislation which seeks to downgrade the citizenship of your own children".
Reform's Defence and Policy Justification
A Reform UK spokesperson strongly rejected the racism allegations, stating unequivocally: "Our policy has nothing to do with race. The MPs making these comments are wilfully misrepresenting the policy." The spokesperson clarified that the party's position applies to "British couples who are both in full-time work, whether that be by birth or naturalisation".
Reform MP Sarah Pochin, representing Runcorn and Helsby, provided detailed justification for her party's stance during the parliamentary debate. She argued that completely removing the two-child benefit cap without restrictions would reward those who "play the system" while punishing hard-working families.
Ms Pochin presented several key arguments in defence of Reform's position:
- Scrapping the two-child limit "does nothing to help hard-working parents who set their alarm clocks every morning"
- It "does everything to encourage families already on benefits to have more children in the full knowledge that the state will pay for them"
- Removing the cap without restrictions "fails to incentivise work" and increases support to non-working families beyond that given to working parents
- "Those who work are being punished, while those who play the system are rewarded"
Demographic Concerns and Birth Rate Statistics
The Reform MP introduced demographic considerations into the debate, noting that "due to higher birth rates amongst foreign nationals, a significant amount of this additional expenditure is expected to go to households where at least one parent is born outside the UK". This statistical observation formed part of her justification for limiting benefit changes to British families with both parents in full-time employment.
Reform MP Lee Anderson from Ashfield added his support for the policy with the straightforward statement that "British people should be put first", reflecting what many see as the party's broader philosophical approach to welfare and immigration matters.
Broader Welfare and Demographic Debates
Beyond the immediate controversy, the debate touched on wider questions about Britain's welfare system and demographic challenges. Mr Malthouse, while criticising Reform's specific proposals, also expressed concerns about the government's approach to completely removing the two-child cap.
The Conservative MP argued that treating children "as a burden somehow to be mitigated, rather than treating them as a bonus to be encouraged" represented a flawed approach. He highlighted what he described as a "massive demographic steam train that's coming down the tunnel towards us", referencing estimates suggesting there will be only two working people for every pensioner by 2050.
Mr Malthouse posed critical questions about future funding: "How are we going to pay for all of this in the future? How are we going to fund it all without enormous debt?" His comments reflect broader concerns about Britain's ageing population and the sustainability of current welfare arrangements.
Labour's Continued Opposition
Former Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell later entered the fray, branding Ms Pochin's views as straightforwardly "racist". Meanwhile, Sam Rushworth, Labour MP for Bishop Auckland, expressed being "deeply offended" by the Reform MP's comments.
Mr Rushworth provided a personal perspective, stating: "My wife was not born in this country, she came here as a teenager, she worked in a meat factory, went through university and now works as a midwife in our NHS. The idea that somehow she should be less entitled because of her birth, I find, frankly, disgusting."
The heated exchanges in Parliament highlight how welfare policy, immigration concerns, and questions of national identity continue to intersect in British politics, with Reform UK finding itself at the centre of particularly intense criticism over its proposed approach to the two-child benefit cap.
