26/04/2017 Scottish Parliament

I begin by moving the motion in my name. Last Thursday, together with

many MSPs from across this chamber, I attended the demonstration which

took place outside this building. At that demonstration, Sandy Brindley

said the opposition to the right clause is not about party politics,

it is about basic human rights, and I agree very much for that. Of

course, the rape clause has come about because of the two child cap

introduced by the UK Government. That cap means child tax credits and

universal credit will only be paid the two children in each family. It

is worth notice that the policy intention of these changes, not an

inadvertent consequence, but the intention is to reduce the income of

low-wage families with children. The Institute for Fiscal Studies have

set up the stark reality of that. 600,000 households across the UK

will be ?2500 a year worse off. 300,000 households, those with four

more children, will be ?7,000 a year worse off. The Health Secretary

received a letter from the DWP. It said the reform is to ensure the

people on benefits has to make the same choices as those supporting

themselves through work, but that misses the point that two thirds of

these families affected by this policy are working households. They

are people who are already participating in the labour market

but on low incomes, and the UK Government therefore seems to be

directly targeting people that it claims to want to help. It is also

important to note these changes are part of a much bigger picture. In

total, by 2022, approximately ?1 billion a year will have been cut

from social security spending in Scotland. Only one fifth of that is

the result of the changes that took effect this month. The past seven

years, this government has systematically reduced vital Social

Security safety nets by freezing the work allowance, cutting support for

housing and cutting the income of people with disabilities. Let's

reflect on some of the consequences of those decisions. Sick and

disabled people have seen their incomes reduced by ?30 a week due to

cuts in employment and support allowance. Every week right now,

around 800 notability vehicles are being removed from disabled people

across the UK as a result of changes to personal independence payments, a

fact that makes Ruth Davidson's decision yesterday to pose for

photographs sitting on a mobility scooter all the more insulting.

Young people aged 18-21 have also had the financial help with housing

costs removed and bereavement payments and wooded parents

allowance had been cut, and 70,000 households in Scotland would of been

hit by the bedroom tax. More than 80% of those households have more

than once adult that is disabled. That is why the UN has described

these cuts as discriminatory and the systematic violation of disabled

people's writes. How shocking is that? The UN describing the attack

on disabled people's benefits as a systematic violation of their

rights. Inevitably, these cuts disproportionately affect families

on low incomes, those who most need support and assistance, and there is

overwhelming evidence that they also disproportionately affect women. The

women's Budget group as noted by the sickness of these cuts the big

government is making will come from women's incomes. It is worth

repeating that. They have been born by women. No government surely, with

a genuine concern for those who just about manage, and the women who so

often have the responsibility of holding these households together,

could ever have chosen to reduce the deficit in this way. So the two

child cap on tax credits is in some senses unsurprising the deeply

regrettable because it is the sort of policy that we have.

is she surprised to learn that this is in fact the second time the

Conservatives have sought to introduce this policy after they

were successfully blocked from so doing in the last Parliament, and

does she agree with me that this is further evidence that the

Conservatives have gone too far? No, I'm not surprised to hear that. I

opposed many of these benefit cuts, I think this one in particular and

the rape clause cause, is definitely going to fire. -- to fire. It is the

type of thing we've come to accept this government. The invitations of

this policy, as the rape clause illustrates soap vividly, an truly

abhorrent. The callousness of these cuts is is unbelievable. The rape

clause is wrong in principle. The equality and human rights commission

said, just at the end of last week that because of this policy, there

is a clear risk of regional metallisation of rape survivors. --

re-traumatised nation of rape survivors. No woman should have to

go through that you get a tax credit for a child. I cannot believe that

in 2017I'm having to stand up in the Scottish parliament and make that

argument. But this policy isn't just a moral

or very definitely is. This puts an unacceptable burden on health

workers and rape crisis centres as well as an officials from the

Department for Work and Pensions. Reyes cried to Scotland, Scottish

Parliament women's aid have all refused to collude with this clause.

Why it that has now passed into law, no one in the UK Government is able

to explain how it will work in practice. So many basic questions

are still completely and entered. What burden of proof is required?

How will be claim be verified and recorded? And how can this process

possibly take place without the women fearing that it will be hugely

stigmatising Faour her and her child? I would ask Ruth Davidson to

do would no one has done anti-cancer these questions -- to enter these

questions. Why shouldn't the victim of rape have to go through such

white should a victim of rape have to go through such a process. Having

to go to a process of verification and having that verification

recorded four years as one of your financial lifeline? The moment

anyone considers all of that, must surely be the moment that the sheer

Renee manatee of this policy becomes clear. -- the sheer inhumanity of

this policy becomes clear. We should just put up with only any callous

cuts the UK Government wants to introduce. According to the Tories,

instead of arguing for the repeal of such policies, discover Scottish

Government should just apply some sticking plaster. I want to address

that ridiculous lodgement head-on today. Firstly, let us be clear. The

Scottish Government cannot abolish the two child clap or the rape

clause. We do not have the legal power to do so. Trying to mitigate

the impact of these cuts would be significantly more complex than

simply compensating people for the bedroom tax. But that is not the

only issue. The real issue here is the financial impact of mitigation

on other services. This is a key point, when the UK Government makes

these cut they don't pass Scotland's share of the savings on to the

government. If they did we could make our choices whether to reverse

the cut or spend the money elsewhere. But the UK Government

keeps the money from those savings. So, any decision by this government

to mitigate one of these cuts involve taking money that is

allocated to schools, hospitals and other services. And notwithstanding

that, we have mitigated where we can. We should not have too, but we

have. In 20 -- in since 2013 this government has spent millions of

pounds mitigating the web syntax. -- the bedroom tax. So, we went apply

the two child cap on our council tax reduction scheme. But we cannot

accept the Tories in permitting any cut they want to and the army ants

are being Scotland having to take money from elsewhere to plug the

gap. -- the only answer being Scotland having to take money from

elsewhere to plug the gap. It is a ridiculous and unsustainable

argument. So, let me say this to the Tories today. If you think that the

Scottish Parliament is better placed to take these decisions, and I

certainly be rid that, then let us forget the sticking plaster

approach. Let's devolve control of tax credits and universal credit and

the budgets to go with them and then let us make our own decisions. In

this Parliament. The fact of the matter is, the only appropriate

mitigation here is for the UK Government to abandon the two child

cap which then renders the rape clause unnecessary. Just as it

reversed cuts to tax credits in the face of mounting credit -- protest

two years ago. These are unworkable and unacceptable. The unworkable

unworkable not just in Scotland and across the UK. Now, the Tories here

had a choice on this issue. A choice of standing up for what is right or

simply being a mouthpiece for the UK Government in defending the

indefensible. The fact that they have chosen the latter I think it to

their shame. It does prove that if Scotland is looking for a strong

voices to protect all that we hold dear, then the last place a they

should ever look is to the Scottish Conservative Party. I said at the

start of the speech that this is not fundamentally an issue of party

politics. It is an issue of human rights and morality. The

overwhelming consensus in this chamber demonstrates that fact.

Today's road gives all of us a fact to reaffirm that. To reaffirm that

despite the fact that the differences we have, we all share a

belief in social justice and the all recognise the importance of humanity

comity dignity and equality in our social security system. An outcry

against the two child policy and the rape clause and I hope will grow

right across the UK. We can take a clear stand against a policy which I

would argue has no place in any civilised society and we can

reaffirm this chamber's commitment to progressive values. For all of

these reasons I urge everyone across this chamber to support today's

chain motion. First let me say that I welcome this

debate today, not just because it is an issue which is easy to just

discuss in public. Something to the polling never is, and it only right

that issues of difficulty and passion like this are depleted in

our parliament here in Edinburgh. -- debated in our Parliament here in

end. As politicians I suspect we all know survivors of rape. I know that

there are even amongst us here, people who have been subject to

sexual violence. They find even the word difficult to articulate. In the

last two weeks as it has emerged into the public domain, I know that

many of us, me included, have spoken to women who are recovering from

their ordeal. We know the awful circumstances that they face, not

just the terror of the attack or attacks, themselves but also the

indignity of the criminal justice system that names and faces them as

the if they report the crime. The criminal injuries compensation

process, the court process and then the lengthy spell afterwards for the

women and men who have to pick up their lives and confront the world

anew. In the last few weeks, when they've talked about helping women

in such a consensus we have used words like sensitive and

compassionate and I agreed that these words don't even begin to cut

it. They shrivel next to the enormity of the violation that they

have suffered. And it is even more so when faced with women whose rate

has resulted in the birth of a child. Presiding officer I would

like to use my speech here to try and places issue in context. The

issue of the so-called rape clause as a result of the welfare Bill

passed in the House of Commons in 2015. These changes to welfare

spending were introduced in the wake of the 2015 general election when my

party set out in its manifesto a clear plan to try and put the UK's

public finances back on solid ground. We all know that the UK

continues to spend more than it can afford, last year borrowing to the

tune of ?69 billion. In order to restore public finances we must

eliminate that deficit and eliminate the debt mountain that the country

has allowed to build up over a period of years. Otherwise, future

generations will have to pay our debts. I'm sorry I have a lot to get

through and I will not be taking any interventions. I also do not think

this issue should be subject to the knock-about that we see and hear

daily. This of course is a political judgment that any government has to

take. Labour and the SNP would not seek to compel the growth in

spending as we would and that is their right. But it is our judgment

that we need to reduce its job -- does the opposite to show that the

UK can build an economy which can continue to sustain product

services. This inevitably means examining many budgets and the

welfare budget is included in that. It has meant, for example, removing

child benefit from higher earners. The issue we're debating today

revolves around for the decision taken by the UK Government to limit

tax credits to the first two children. Now, it is worth stressing

that this will not apply to existing claimants. In other words comment of

three or more children currently claim tax credits will still

continue to do so. I accept that many years here, this change is far

from welcome let's say that these are difficult judgment calls. When

in 2015 the government proposed the scouts I spoke out against them. I

did not think that the Minister had got the balance right and those

measures which were scrapped. The two tax limit was not something that

macro to cap limit was not something I spoke out against. Harriet Carmine

also made it clear that she felt it was something that should be

considered. -- Harriet Harman. We are... I agreed with her then and I

still do. A one parent family with two children in which the parent

work 16 hours a week at minimum wage can claim benefits... I cite these

figures only to give context to the numbers at the First Minister gave.

This package of reforms was voted through the House of Commons and I

noted that many Labour MPs abstained at stage two. It was then entering

the consultation phase, prior to implement agent that the question of

exception was raged that matter raised an agreed. For children who

are adopted, and Freddie were cases when a dearth of a third or a

subsequent child is a consequence of rape, the UK Government agrees that

the two child restriction could not apply. I cannot imagine that there

is a single member of this chamber who does not support this attention

as I do. So the question then comes to implantation. I'm sorry to say

that on this issue to many people have simply not been clear of the

fact. I have heard members of this chamber say on television that women

must compete on a page form -- complete an eight page form to

receive an exemption. This is simply not correct. May I quote the

Department for Work and Pensions consultation report on this matter,

published in January, it says neither DWP nor HMRC staff will

question the claimant about the incident other then asking... A

point of order... A point of order Mr Finlay. I was under the

impression this was debating chamber. Isn't it appalling that we

have the Leader of the Opposition and willing to take any intervention

over this most hilarious proposal. -- blueness proposal. -- terrible

proposal. There is absolutely no requirement to either report rape is

a crime, to provide proof of rape were proof of conviction. A woman

like to name and a third-party professional who is helping the

mother is asked to set out the rest. This third-party model already

exists in the benefit system super -- to support victims of domestic

violence. The third-party It is important that we are not

wilfully misrepresenting the process here, so let me outline this again

to the Chamber. The woman writes her name and a third-party professional

helping the mother is asked to set up the rest, and this third-party

model already exists in the benefit system to support victims of

domestic violence. The third-party professional is also able to provide

or signpost claimants to additional support. The First Minister talks of

work ability. Citizens advice Scotland, who have been very

critical of the third child restriction, said the following...

Is it not the case in this debate that the fact should be clearly

represented? Ms Davidson said the applicant only had to fill out the

name and sign the form. I am reading from her form page, where the

applicant is required to put their name, national Insurance number,

address, declared that I believe the non-conceptual conception applies to

my child, give the child's name, sign that and confirm I am not

living with the other parent of this child, even if that other parent was

a person raped the applicant. So accuracy in this debate surely is

important! APPLAUSE. I understand emotions were running

high, that was an intervention, not the point of order. I refer to the

third-party model and showed that are already exists relating to

domestic violence and it is the model used to fill out the pages of

this form. Let me come back to that point the First Minister raised

about work ability. Citizens advice Scotland, who I accept to be

critical of the two child restriction, has said this about

work ability, citizens advice Scotland is content with a

third-party model sufficient to enable the exemption of the two

child restriction where it is likely that a child has been conceived as a

result of rape. I hear concerns raised by other charities in this

sector who do not agree with this policy, and I take them seriously,

which is why I say the implementation of these exemptions

must be closely monitored. I would like to conclude with two points,

firstly in relation to the First Minister's motion, I do not dispute

the sources she's quitting, but I asked the Chamber to examine the

issue of welfare reform. At the moment, the UK employment rate is

the highest on record. In the last year, the number of disabled people

at work has increased by nearly 300,000. There are nearly 1.3

million women are more employed since 2010 was dog also since that

time, there are 828 fewer workless households. Income inequality in

this country has fallen because the incomes of the lowest paid are

rising. Latest ONS data showed lowest paid workers are seen their

pay go up the most. Median household disposable income for the poorest

fifth rose by ?700 last year compared to the richest fifth, whose

incomes fell by ?1000. And we're helping people keep more of what

they earn. And because of this, the proportion of people living in

relative poverty in this country is near its lowest levels since the

1980s. Since 2010, there are 300,000 fewer people across the UK in

poverty and 100,000 fewer children. Across the UK, we continue to spend

?90 billion a year on supporting families, people on low incomes and

job-seekers. This is the record of the UK Government on welfare. Our

system means that people do not support that, they have the

opportunity to ask someone else to do it on the 8th of June, but that

this Parliament, the question is deeper and the question facing us

is, what is this Parliament for? Is it to be a soapbox, the sound off

about the policies in London the MSPs do not like? All, given the

enormous powers Parliament now has, is it the act? And if there is

something that some in this chamber feel is abhorrent or repellent, then

surely those words lose all meaning there something behind it. The

taxation to pay for decisions were demanded and transferred precisely

so that devolved Scottish governments could make different

choices. I do not believe that any member of this chamber disagrees

that women who have children in the worst of circumstances should be

exempted from restrictions on tax credit. I do not want to believe

that any member would wilfully misrepresent the process, causing

fear and alarm. However, I do believe that there are many members

of other parties who would wish away tax credits restricted to the first

two children and would point them to the legislative powers of this

Parliament. For my part, I will continue to monitor the way this

works on the ground. And the First Minister and her ministers use

strong words like shameful, and she has the power to act. If she chooses

not to act, that would indeed be shameful. So we will continue to

monitor this and I will with the amendment that is in my name.

APPLAUSE. I begin by moving the amendment in my name. Politics is

likely choose because we think we can do some good. More than that, it

is because we think it is our opinions, it views on life, which

shaped the world we it helped those feel left behind, forgotten or are

struggling and give them a voice and a belief they are counted. We are

all here because we are in the business of doing good. What an

ideal, what an absolute joke in the eyes of the Scottish Conservative

Party! For ten years, the Tory government at Westminster has

slashed our social security system in a deliberate act of sabotage and

the question I would put over it Davidson, if she had bothered to

take any interventions, is question of judgment. Why do rape victims

have to pay the price of the deficit while you give tax cuts to the

richest analysis IT? The disabled, poor, ill, carers of our society

have all been victims of Tory austerity and not content with that,

the Tories have turned the attention to the tax credit system, one of

Labour's finest achievements. Is there no end to the Tories' desire

that those with the least have even less? As the casual victims of this

meanness, women who have two children, who have had a third as a

result of a rape, are now at the mercy of a harsh dig tacked

government intent on dismantling the safety net benefits. I do admit to

being raped and have a child born of this, physically, mentally,

emotionally scarred, and get the financial help you need, or go

without! Without doubt, the Tories' cap is arbitrary and unfair and the

rape clause is utterly horrific and abhorrent! APPLAUSE. I look across

this chamber at Ruth Davidson and others and I know that many of them

have not always agreed with decisions that everybody has taken

in Westminster in the past yet amongst the so-called detoxified

Tories, not one of them will speak out against this later abomination,

not one will stand up and say the asking rape victims to declare on a

form that the child was a result of an appalling crime is just wrong.

What is worse is that they even try and defend it! There is nothing

floppy about David Mandel, a man who cannot answer when asked on radio is

because comfortable asking rape victims to fill in such a form, a

man who then has the brass neck to accuse those of us who... There is

nothing brave about Ruth Davidson when she fails to tackle her own

government on this appalling issue and hide behind a spokesperson for

days! APPLAUSE. But here is someone who is brave. I have a letter from a

woman who wrote to me to tell her story about a rape and how this

barbaric policy would have affected her. I have her permission to read

in full and I have only removed references to the child's gender and

its age. The Tories may not want to listen to me, but they surely cannot

ignore her. This is what she had to say. Four years ago, one of my

closest friends, someone I trusted, raped me. It happened once. I used

emergency contraception but still fell pregnant. Lots of reasons, I

decided I could not terminate the pregnancy and went on to the baby.

The speculation about the father was awful. I accepted I would be

labelled promiscuous as a result. I was prepared for that. I expected

and received horrendous treatment from my husband's family. I was

prepared for that. I was prepared for the financial hardship, having

just been made redundant. I was as prepared as I could be for life as a

single parent. What I was not prepared for was the impact the

labelling would have on my three existing children, born into wedlock

and brought up in the stable family home. I was not prepared for the

shame I would feel. I was not prepared for the fear if anyone

finding out and refusing to believe me. I was not prepared for the

feeling that suicide was the only way out. I certainly was not

prepared for the amount of hatred and resentment that I would feel for

my own child. Years on, I have a happy, healthy child. They are

worshipped, not just by me but by my extended family and husband, a brave

and loving man. My child does not know where they came from and if I

have anything to do with it, they won't. Though far from perfect, with

challenges of its own, I hope the secrecy will give them the chance to

live as close to normal life as possible. There have been so many

pleas to take legal action or why the circle of trust to allow those

who love me to provide support during the difficult times but this

is a risk I could never take. I need to protect my children from the

truth came above all other considerations. The wider the circle

of midwives, consultants, family, the less chance I had protecting

myself, my children from the permanent and damaging stigma

attached to rape. I claimed tax credits from birth to 11 months old.

I needed it at my most honourable to allow me to re-stabilise my family.

Tax credits kept our heads above water, a buffer between us and the

food bank. For that, I am eternally grateful. There is no way I could

complete that awful form of shame, no matter what the consequences.

Looking back, that really could've been the thing that tipped me over

the edge. The difference between surviving to tell the tale or not.

That is the reality of the Tory rape clause, the awful shame form. That

is what Tories want to put on victims of rape because it does not

want to pay for more than two children in a poor family. It is an

absolutely sickening state of affairs but it is not the author of

that letter or any other rape victim who should feel shame, it is those

on the Tory benches here and in Westminster who refuse to have...

APPLAUSE. I urge every single Tory MSP to stop and think about the

ordeal you are asking women to go through, oppose this clause and

finally do some good! APPLAUSE. I am grateful that Parliament

debates child tax credit cuts this afternoon though dismayed that such

a debate is necessary in such a law has been made by the UK Parliament

through conservative boats and backing. The welfare reform and work

act which limits entitlement to a maximum of two children under six of

this month is the latest in an onslaught of UK legislation which is

negatively impacted women and children. Ruth Davidson in a

desperate defence of the indispensable, indefensible asks

that we look at welfare reform, of the ?26 billion of cuts that will

have been implemented between 2010 and 2020, 80 6% will have been taken

from women's incomes. That is the context in which we debate this

today, and we were some way away from gender equality before severe

austerity was inflicted upon us. In the analysis, the resolution

foundation concluded that the poorest third of households will be

worse off from tax and benefit changes starting from the 6th of

April, despite a ?1 billion giveaway. Back giveaway from the

public purse seems the better of households receive 80% of the tax

cut windfall in the poorest third shouldering two thirds, 67% of

benefit losses. The overall package of reforms adds up to a significant

transfer from low and middle-income households the richer ones.

the Ben Toolis Charles tax credits to kill children is effectively a

two child vamp that matter. There is no evidence that the

measures will incentivise families to only have two children if they

cannot afford to have more. -- can afford to have more. This policy

takes no issue that family members become unwell that family situations

change. The fact is that the child tax credit limit along with the

overall cap on welfare benefits, fundamentally distorts our means

tested Social Security system. A system based on assessing people's

needs and their ability to meet them. What this tax credit limit

means is that an family will be assessed and even when it's

concluded that that family requires additional support, that support

will be withheld. The Commissioner is right when he says that when it

comes to the new benefit cuts, for the UK Government some children

matter more than others. It's no surprise that he has raised concern

for the rights of children with the UN committee committee on the rights

of the child. Just because Westminster has legislated these

needs will not be disappeared. Include weather is a multiple birth

any cases of adoption. Let's look at the close we have a dusting most

detail. -- discussed in most detail. Now known as per the rape clause,

but surely as you get to the stage where you asking women that the

child they are claiming under half of is a result of rape, a single

brutal attack perhaps or perhaps doing it ongoing abusive coercive

relationship, surely you would come to the conclusion that the

invocations of your legislation on the impact that macro impact on the

well-being and the permissive children are completely unexpected

will -- annex unacceptable. It will be personally difficult than

traumatic for many women to complete this form and it will be practically

difficult, if not impossible, as Scottish women's aid and rape crisis

Scotland wholeheartedly opposed the limit and the exception and cannot

and will not collude by acting as third party reporters for the DWP.

The Royal College of Nursing tells us that they were not approached by

the DWP over this and they do not believe it is appropriate for a

midwife to minors to arbitrate whether a child has been conceived

by rape. The gym and visit the claimant is not living with the

perpetrator, -- the argument... They will have the same pressing

financial lead to support a third or more child but not the means to

recoup that meet the requirement of this app warrant clause. -- app

warrant clause. -- abominable close. I am wholly supportive of women to

support these incidents, but we now why many women are reluctant to take

this step. There is so much work yet to be done on this front. Yet we

expect women to fill in detail forms for the DWP. In everything -- in

their briefing Scottish women's rape crisis says we have no doubt that

this will import -- cause harm to these victims. Removing this control

risks re-traumatised and women. The equality and human rights commission

has written to the DWP explaining their concerns regarding the cap and

the operation of this exemption. With regard to the cap they point

out that children have a right to adequate living standards and that

these are international rights, owed by the state to the children

themselves. These rights are not dependent on the choices when the

circumstances of their parents. The commission rightly criticised the

DWP for their lack of a properly -- detailed impact assessment. The cuts

affecting women in children is a scandal and it has to stop. The

Scottish Government has the powers to take action to mitigate. To make

something bad less severe, as the dictionary would have it. And of

course the Scottish Government must and will look at ways to ensure

support for those affected is available. But I campaign for a

Scottish parliament. I joined Scotland forward before I joined the

Scottish Green Party. Ruth Davidson asks what a Scottish parliament is

for. It's not just simply to mitigate the policies of the

Conservatives at Westminster. My vision of devolution is proactive,

where politicians in Scotland work together pretty good people in

Scotland. Ruth Davidson, Adam Tomkins and others appear to have no

vision of what this parliament can be about. I support the Labour

amendment and I'm moving amendment in my name. Thank you we now move to

the open part of the debate. I call Christina McKelvie. Thank you very

much presiding officer, I'm profoundly sad to say that these tax

credit cuts are the hearts and cruel nature of this Tory government. --

harsh and cruel nature of this Tory government. It always seems to find

a new low to stoop to when it comes to attacking the dignity and the

living conditions of the vulnerable. This is nothing less than malevolent

social engineering. In December 14, Iain Duncan Smith suggested that

imposing the cap would help behavioural change, and that of the

Coit, think about those words, help -- think about those words help

behavioural change. The suggestion is that poor people should the

impudence or moral right to breed. He is rich, a member of the Tory

elite, so he is never likely to call on the welfare state that he is so

much against. It deliberately planted a seed in people's minds

that the parents on lower incomes are being responsible. We might be

shocked by this, but we should not be surprised. It is, after all, the

latest twist of the knife from a Tory government that already thinks

it's OK to tell you where to live. How many bedrooms you can have.

Whether you get support for your disability. If you can independent

bat maintain your independence through your disability cap, what

and how often you eat. Whether you're under 25 and you actually get

housing support to maintain a roof over your head. And now, how dare if

you dare to extend your family? The worst kind of social engineering.

Beyond reactionary, beyond an fair, frankly, presiding officer beyond

belief. It's perhaps the most disgusting thing we're thinking the

Tories yet, the so-called rape clause. The one exemption to the

three strikes and you're out tax policy this is nothing less in a

barbaric attack on women. They have already suffered from having a child

as a result of non-conceptual is sex. -- nonconsensual sex. This Tory

government has ignored her calls for a sense and even comparison to

prevail. There are very own Jackson Carlo has described the policy is

awkward. Oak Ridge who? Free Tory party having to slip this through --

awkward for who? Throw Ruth Davidson and your other colleagues now trying

to perform excruciating contortions to sidestep responsibility for this

barbarism? Could I say to them, let their members say volley here hear

this. Let those trapped by this vicious and impunity piece of --

punitive piece of sophistry, it is more than awkward. Imagine you are

your family -- member of your family having suffered domestic violence

having to deal with this. To allow the page to using a page form to

snoop into the deepest recesses of your heart and your trauma. Imagine

if you didn't report that way because you just want to bury that

awful memory? Much like Kezia Dugdale love's example. Imagine if

you're in Northern Ireland and your application result in a report to

the police. Imagine if you're that child, named on that form. Well, we

don't have to imagine it do we? This is not some dystopian story, this is

actual government policy, right here, right now in this so-called

civilised United Kingdom. This is deeper than disgusting. It is

deliberate, calculated attack not just on women, who so often bear the

brunt of Tory cuts. If Scottish Tories here on this Parliament here

in this Parliament squat down and hope the firestorm passes. Ruth

Davidson went even apologise. She went even explained. She even has

the audacity to suggest that Parliament mitigate the damage had

by protecting the people from the mean minded policies of her party.

Where there's muck, there's always a brass neck, and there's plenty in

you today. -- in your today. Politicians,... The trade unions and

child poverty campaigners and even the House of Lords. If Ruth Davidson

entered colleagues want us to believe they're capable of even at

of compassion they must resist this devoted of -- divisive demeaning

corrosive legislation. I want to live in a civilisation that treats

its people of compassion and care and not heartlessness and contempt.

I say it loud and clear today to the Tories, we don't want your tax

credit cuts, we don't want your rate close here have -- rape clause. We

don't want it anywhere in the Niger Kingdom. Scrap it now. Survivors of

rape have been to hell and back. They're very being has been. Women

have reported being raped will have been subjected to the indignities of

the criminal justice system and may face the daunting prospect of a

protracted killer case. They will experience shame and isolation that

most of us cannot imagine. And these emotions will never dissipate in a

lifetime. To say this is a sensitive subject that must be treated

carefully may be true, but it does not even begin to cut it. In the

rare cases when the rate result in a conception and birth of a child, the

situation is even more fraught this is the context in which I want to

post my comment. When the duties of government is the responsible

stewardship of the government resources. But when the

Conservatives return to government he doesn't intend Gordon Brown's

outgoing legislation had failed in this respect. Sorry, but there is no

money left... That is what we were told. I'm not giving away at the

moment... Sorry, but there is an money left, that's what we patrolled

in that famous note left in the Treasury. Putting the nation 's

finances on a sound financial footing as been the core mission of

Conservative government over the past seven years. Responsible

stewardship of the nation's resources is why we turned Coalition

into majority in 2015 and how we will turn a majority of 12 into a

majority many times greater on the 8th of June. It is the right thing

to do, it is the right thing for an economy for everyone. Mr Gold,

please sit down. -- Mr Gold plated them getting the taxpayer to

contribute to the right and benefits. Our politicians have to

make that judgment and it is our judgment that is the right thing to

do to restore furniture in the benefit system between those

receiving benefits -- fairness in the benefit system. Making the same

financial decisions as those supporting themselves solely through

work and that is why, from the 1st of April this year, piled child tax

credits are limited to the first two children in a family. This will

apply only to new claims. No one currently receiving Clement credits

will see their credits reduced. Not everyone will share our judgment of

this is the right thing to do and if a majority of MSPs in this

Parliament think that we have got this balance wrong, and at a

different policy would be the right one for Scotland, we have all the

powers we need to do something We have the power to top up any

reserved benefit, including child tax credits, and the resources to

pay for it, if that is what we choose to do. At the same time as

decided we should limit child tax credits, we saw there must be

exemptions. What if there is a multiple birth? What of the children

are adopted from care? What about when it birth is a consequence of a

rape? Just as I support the underlying decision to limit child

tax credits, so too do support these exemptions. Because of the issues I

refer to at the beginning of my speech, it is obviously the case

that the exemption as regards children conceived as a result of

the rape, is extraordinarily sensitive. I have heard it said that

women will have to prove they were raped. I have heard it said the

exemption will apply only where there has been a conviction for

rape. That is not the case. There does not even have to have been a

charge, never mind a conviction. And even the claimed that a woman has to

fill in an eight page form, reliving the horror of her assault and

violation, is not... Is the more that we can do to support the

survivors of rapes and sexual assault in Scotland? Yes, there is.

We could increase the number of sexual assault referral centres.

There are 43 such centres in England, there are six in Wales and,

in the SNP's Scotland, just one. It is also the case that more than 90%

of projects aimed at tackling violence against women and children

have suffered cuts and Scottish Government funding. Let me conclude

with these remarks. It is sometimes said the Conservatives target the

poor. In a sense, that is correct. Since 2010, we have lifted 1.3

million low-wage workers out of income tax. At the same time, the

national living wage has given a pay rise to 1.7 million people. Our

welfare reforms hit higher income families first by removing child

benefit. Whereas the Labour Party had a lower rate of tax for the very

richest in society, Conservatives have ensured the wealthiest pay a

greater share of tax. Under the Conservatives, income inequality is

falling. Judgments about the relationship of tax to spend,

decisions about getting the balance right between the responsibilities

of taxpayers to contribute on the rights of claimants, these are

difficult decisions that require tough choices. Limiting child tax

credit is the right thing to do, it is stewarding the nation's resources

and exempting some families from this is also the right decision. I

support the amendment in Ruth Davidson's name. I would like to

hear all members in the debate. Like many in here, I entered politics

because I believe in equality and social justice, not to punish the

poor and reward the rich. Which the Tories ever hear of doing through

the benefit system. I am finding it difficult to broach the subject. I

am a member myself of a large family. My mother worked part-time,

my father was worked until he was 73. Sometimes we relied on free

school meals and the help of friends and family. The reason I am

struggling with this barbaric, disgusting, disgraceful policy put

forward by Westminster and defended by the Tories to cross here in the

Scottish Parliament, the reason I am struggling with this policy is, if

it was bought into force when I was born, where would we be now? Where

would my family, my nieces, nephews, anyone be? I tell you where we would

be, we would be absolutely struggling, poverty stricken, even

though we have a hard-working families, and that is why I find it

really difficult to speak about this. And the people who are

struggling just now, this will make it absolutely worse than ever.

People who are on low employment, low-wage families, many of them,

they are not scroungers, they are working hard, really hard, and the

Tories over here are punishing them because they are low paid and

because the women is well. I will give you some statistics about that.

The thing I find really hard to believe, if you have got a child

born after 11:59pm on the 5th of April, 2017, and that child will be

brought up in a family that are poorer, the struggling, and children

living in abject poverty. A minute either side, and that child will

live in abject poverty. A quote from the Tory amendment, the reason for

pushing this forward, Ruth Davidson's amendment says, the UK

Government has a duty to manage public finances for future

generations. What future generations are they protecting? They are

destroying women. I find absolutely disgraceful that any political party

could think up something quite like this. I said I would give you facts

and figures. People are not benefit scroungers. In fact, of all in work

families receiving tax credits, 80% and percent of recipients are women.

For in work single parents, 94% were women. In work, not workless, which

itself is an abomination of a word, in work families, women, and all

they are doing is getting a helping hand in case something happens to

them, but I would like to put this forward as well. What happens if you

are taking precautions and the condom happens to burst? Or you are

ill on the pill does not work? Does it tell you in this document what

you do then? What happens to these families? What happens to these

women? Today have to go to the doctor and get a letter and say, I'm

sorry, I have got to produce a burst condom? These are things that are to

human life. I am talking about the right of people of dignity and

respect, and these Tories over here are taking it from them and defended

the policy, and they should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for

not even standing up and sticking up for the ordinary people working in

this country! APPLAUSE. I wanted to go into the raped close. Ruth

Davidson and Andrew Tomkins both practically said the same speech,

they both mentioned violation. If you go down to the DWP and you fill

in this eight page form, is that not a violation of women's rights? And

yet you defend that! I honestly despair. With this proposal, there

is no decency left. Have you read or seen even? I saw the bit in the

paper today, you said you would give reasons why you defend this. You

have got relatives live in Glasgow, you have come from areas where

people have got more than two children living on low incomes, how

can you possibly defend this and go out there in a Glasgow constituency

and say you stick up for ordinary working people? Do you know what it

says in the top of this paper? We believe in equality and diversity.

Now, is about something? That is it what it says in this eight page

form, women who had been raped or domestically abused after filling,

we believe in equality and diversity. Welcome you do not

believe in anything, or you believe is looking after yourselves and the

rich, and the poor and the ones that will suffer and particularly women

have to prove they have been raped? You should be ashamed of yourselves!

I would like to start by paying tribute to the very moving testimony

offered by Miss Dugdale and Miss White. I also congratulate the

Scottish Government for bringing forward this motion. We will support

both amendments. Who can forget the inaugural words of Theresa May's

tenure as Prime Minister when in her own moment on the steps of Number

10, she said of those families who in particular rely on tax credits,

if you from an ordinary working class family, life is much harder

than many people in Westminster realise, you have a job but do not

have job security, you have own home at you worry about paying the

mortgage, you can just about manage but you worry about the cost of

living in getting your kids into a good school. I know you are working

round the clock and doing your best and sometimes life can be a

struggle. The government is it will be driven not by the interests of

the privileged few but by yours. In the two child tax credit cap and the

raped clause that underpins it, we see the measure of that commitment

made flesh, and I am certain those words have turned to ash in her

mouth. There are days in this chamber when we debate matters of

welfare reform and social security. I rise to speak with trepidation,

recognition there were times my own party participated in decisions and

reforms that were distasteful to us as liberals but less greed than

those originally proposed by our partners. Members opposite lose no

time in reminding me of that in colourful interventions, but the

untold story of our days in coalition is what never made it to

the statute books, thanks to Liberal Democrats resistance. They would

Pina lies any workers outside the south-east of England is,

inheritance tax cuts for millionaires, enhanced powers for

employers to sack staff. As I told the First Minister in my

intervention, this abhorrent policy would have been on the statute books

for years had my party not taken a stand and block the coalition. No

point is my party ever denied that welfare reform was needed. Indeed,

the poverty Alliance have said that the old system was no longer fit for

purpose but, on this, the have got it far wrong. The policy that we

debate this afternoon has rightly grabbed national attention to the

raped clause but it is the two child cap at the root of the policy which

will see families drift between Neath poverty. At present, the

national outrage that is child poverty stands at 250,000 children

or more and it is rising. Family tax credits have, thanks to the Lib Dem

uplift in the income tax threshold, being the best if addressing family

poverty. I wonder if the member thinks that even one Tory, even one,

will have the dignity, honesty and self-respect to vote against the

party tonight at decision time? I thank him for his intervention. I

would very much hope so but sadly I doubt it. As I was saying, the

income tax threshold and tax credits have been the most effective means

of addressing in work family poverty and with a pound weakening, the cost

of living rising as a result of the Tory hard Brexit, the manager hard

Brexit, to manage an assault on tax credits now would see those numbers

grow further and faster. It gives the lie to the warm words of our new

Prime Minister. I described the cap is the root of the clause. If you

were to suggest such a cap or necessary, and I reject that is, to

bring in such a restriction without any exemptions would be unfair and

inhumane. That is why it is so barbaric about the notion of

determining public policy on the basis of an upward limit on

child-bearing. Any such policy would lead by necessity to a raped clause

and if a policy necessitates a precondition whereby women must

actively proved to an employee of the state or third party that they

have been raped, such policy has no place in a civilised society.

Because let us speak truthfully about the landscape in which rape

survivors find themselves in modern Britain. Conviction rates of rape

cases stand to 33%. If you ensure a raped, one of the most life

shattering, poisonous, dehumanising acts imaginable, and you can get

enough evidence to press charges, you can expect to be believed about

one third of the time.