:00:44. > :00:51.Executive in general, policy worker, women's goodish raid. We have
:00:52. > :00:55.brought the discretion by bringing the first question. I do know from
:00:56. > :01:01.the submissions, other members will be asking further questions. The
:01:02. > :01:06.child tax credit is an area which basically feels your time and people
:01:07. > :01:14.ask most questions about child tax credits and they have been seeking
:01:15. > :01:18.advice. The introduction of the cap, the increase, we have had people
:01:19. > :01:22.enquiring and also how you perceive this legislation, which has gone
:01:23. > :01:32.forward and how this will affect your clients. In terms of child tax
:01:33. > :01:41.credits, it's one of the most common things that people will seek advice
:01:42. > :01:48.on. Around 13,300 cases in the last year. In terms of, since the
:01:49. > :01:54.introduction, because it's only been six weeks and because it's only
:01:55. > :01:59.affecting children who were born after the 6th of April, there hasn't
:02:00. > :02:07.been a huge spike and what we would expect to see is a gradual increase
:02:08. > :02:17.over time. As more children are born and people will come for advice
:02:18. > :02:23.about back. OK. -- about that. Our concern is for women who are
:02:24. > :02:27.experiencing domestic abuse and the importance of Social Security as a
:02:28. > :02:33.safety net for women when they leave an abusive partner. The evidence we
:02:34. > :02:39.have submitted highlights the impact of the cuts to social security on
:02:40. > :02:46.women especially parents, the majority of whom are women, lone
:02:47. > :02:51.parents, and we see this limit as going to further impoverished women.
:02:52. > :02:57.Which then limits their capacity for action. And their ability to make
:02:58. > :03:02.choices and their ability to leave an abusive partner and for women,
:03:03. > :03:08.deep to child limit, if they are having a third child, and the case
:03:09. > :03:11.study that Weise omitted -- the two child limit, if they are having a
:03:12. > :03:16.third child, and the case study that we submitted, with a woman who is
:03:17. > :03:21.working part-time as a cleaner with a very insecure contract and is
:03:22. > :03:25.pregnant but with ill health, as a result of domestic abuse, this is a
:03:26. > :03:30.typical example of the women that Womens Aid works with, and this will
:03:31. > :03:36.really affect women in this situation in terms of, can they make
:03:37. > :03:41.that move to leave an abusive partner or not? They will have to
:03:42. > :03:45.weigh this up and it reinforces the message is that women get from an
:03:46. > :03:48.abusive partner, that they are not of equal value and they will be able
:03:49. > :03:55.to manage on their own and their children will suffer as a result of
:03:56. > :04:03.them leaving that partner. OK. We don't have service uses but along
:04:04. > :04:07.with a range of women's organisations we have been doing
:04:08. > :04:11.work to test some of the ideas around the proposed Social Security
:04:12. > :04:16.changes and the use of the new powers in Scotland. Women are deeply
:04:17. > :04:21.concerned by the introduction of the two child limit, extremely horrified
:04:22. > :04:27.by the notion of the rape laws and other exemptions, but also have a
:04:28. > :04:32.strong sense that this is a signal from the UK Government that women
:04:33. > :04:37.who are living with poverty should not be having more than two children
:04:38. > :04:41.and that the same choices about how to plan their lives and their
:04:42. > :04:47.families are therefore not open in the same way and not supported by UK
:04:48. > :04:49.Government which I think it's a profoundly stigmatising message to
:04:50. > :04:56.send through the Social Security system. To follow up on that
:04:57. > :05:01.slightly. When it's child tax credits top up, basically in your
:05:02. > :05:05.opinion, if you are going to have three children and you are having to
:05:06. > :05:09.produce this letter, if you are going forward for any kind of
:05:10. > :05:16.benefits, would you perceive that people have too produced a letter as
:05:17. > :05:21.well? What is the knock on effect? Most working families are not on
:05:22. > :05:24.benefits as such and it might not have an affect on the other aspects
:05:25. > :05:30.of the welfare system for these women? -- it might have an effect.
:05:31. > :05:35.That is a good question, and something about which we are not
:05:36. > :05:43.clear. The letter which we have sent to Damian Hines, UK minister for
:05:44. > :05:46.employment, asked ten abroad questions -- abroad questions about
:05:47. > :05:52.the way in which information will be gathered and stored, and how it will
:05:53. > :05:57.be signified in communications which might need to be sent to other
:05:58. > :06:02.agencies. There has been concern amongst England -based organisations
:06:03. > :06:05.that web parents are making applications for free school meals
:06:06. > :06:10.they will have to show a letter that is maybe coded in such a way that
:06:11. > :06:17.makes it clear that a child has been conceived as a result of rape and we
:06:18. > :06:20.are desperately concerned about the potential breach to privacy and
:06:21. > :06:25.dignity of the child and of the mother that that would entail, but
:06:26. > :06:32.that the implementation of the rape clause has been extremely opaque and
:06:33. > :06:35.the recent we have written to the minister is to seek urgent
:06:36. > :06:43.clarification on a range of questions that women are certainly
:06:44. > :06:49.posing to us. The letter spells out a lot of our concerns about how that
:06:50. > :06:54.information will be used, if women were to choose to complete that
:06:55. > :07:00.form, which I think is questionable. And also the lack of progress see, I
:07:01. > :07:05.think, as you said, if you are applying for a grant and you have to
:07:06. > :07:11.provide proof of income, there are only a couple of reasons why you
:07:12. > :07:17.might be receiving tax credits for three children and so how will that
:07:18. > :07:27.information be protected. That's one of the key questions that we have.
:07:28. > :07:30.Yes, I think... Losing the entitlement to tax credits will
:07:31. > :07:37.result in a loss of income and we have seen from previous changes in
:07:38. > :07:44.2012, and we had a glimpse with the issues around people's tax credits
:07:45. > :07:52.being stopped and how much of an impact tax credits have on family
:07:53. > :07:58.income is. That people will be driven further into hardship. In
:07:59. > :08:06.terms of the technical interplay between the benefits. It might have
:08:07. > :08:15.an effect on people's entitlement to other benefits. Need to go through,
:08:16. > :08:24.I suppose, particular cases to see if there is a change of entitlement.
:08:25. > :08:32.But, yeah, I think it's something that might have an impact on wider
:08:33. > :08:36.things. Alison Johnson? Thank you. Thank you panel, especially for some
:08:37. > :08:42.very informative written submissions. I note from the
:08:43. > :08:49.submissions that there is a particular impact on the two child
:08:50. > :08:52.limit on religious committees and black and minority ethnic
:08:53. > :08:57.communities -- religious communities. I'm concerned about the
:08:58. > :09:02.evidence base for this policy and it seems to come from a view that those
:09:03. > :09:09.who claim child tax credits should have to be subject to the same
:09:10. > :09:13.financial decisions as those who can't claim it, but as has been
:09:14. > :09:20.noted, most people claiming tax credits are working, 69%, and there
:09:21. > :09:25.are two parents in the home, 64%. Are there any weaknesses in the way
:09:26. > :09:32.this policy has been justified? Yes, I think you have put your finger on
:09:33. > :09:37.a number of weaknesses in the development of the policy. I think
:09:38. > :09:43.our analysis of the statements that government has made throughout the
:09:44. > :09:48.development of the two child limit but also the exemptions has been
:09:49. > :09:51.that there has been very little clarity about the underlying
:09:52. > :10:00.thinking behind the policy and the evidence base for the policy. And a
:10:01. > :10:04.failure to impact assess the policy. And UK Government is required as all
:10:05. > :10:10.public bodies are to undertake a quality impact assessment. The
:10:11. > :10:13.equality and human rights commission has also written to Damian Hines to
:10:14. > :10:20.say they don't feel this has happened. And therefore the impact
:10:21. > :10:24.on those communities that you in the array, women, black and minority
:10:25. > :10:28.ethnic people, has not been captured -- that you Nimrud.
:10:29. > :10:35.There is not an evidence base which has been shown to the public to
:10:36. > :10:38.explain why the UK Government would think this would incentivise
:10:39. > :10:45.families to behave in a different way. There is one very brief
:10:46. > :10:51.reference to works that the IFS has done in the impact assessment,
:10:52. > :10:57.published on the welfare referred and work act, and that does not
:10:58. > :10:59.amount to a commencing case to suggest that reducing tax credits
:11:00. > :11:05.will encourage families to make different choices -- convincing
:11:06. > :11:10.case. And the children they have. Common sense will tell us, if you
:11:11. > :11:14.can claim child tax credits on till the age of your child being 20, that
:11:15. > :11:21.people do not have a crystal ball to see into the future and bereavement,
:11:22. > :11:26.illness, disability, family breakdown, blending your family with
:11:27. > :11:30.that of another person, all of these things are not predicted by people,
:11:31. > :11:35.but we know they happen to millions of families across the UK. To
:11:36. > :11:40.compound the weakness of the argument for doing it in the first
:11:41. > :11:44.place, comes I think the additional indignity that the needs of
:11:45. > :11:47.communities which are protected by law including women have just not
:11:48. > :11:52.been considered adequately in the development of this policy. Thank
:11:53. > :12:01.you. Would anyone else like to comment? There is a range of
:12:02. > :12:08.situations where people who... Are not claiming tax credits at the
:12:09. > :12:11.point their child is born, might need to claim tax credits if their
:12:12. > :12:16.family breaks up, if someone is made redundant, if someone falls ill, and
:12:17. > :12:22.so it cannot be the case and sincerity at the time that when the
:12:23. > :12:31.child was planned and born, -- cannot be the case that it was
:12:32. > :12:35.conceived when the child was planned and born, that they would need tax
:12:36. > :12:39.credits in the next few years. This will impact the lone parents in
:12:40. > :12:45.particular, especially those who would have three or more children,
:12:46. > :12:50.affected by other changes, as well, to the Social Security system. From
:12:51. > :12:58.official figures published, it seems the reduction of the benefit cap,
:12:59. > :13:03.57% of households affected in Scotland and lone parents with three
:13:04. > :13:07.or more children. There is concern that there will be a double whammy
:13:08. > :13:13.between the benefit cap and the changes to the tax credit system and
:13:14. > :13:18.to other Social Security changes coming in such as the changes to
:13:19. > :13:21.employment support allowance and the reduction... The removal of the
:13:22. > :13:29.family element in tax credits, as well, we'll have quite a significant
:13:30. > :13:39.squeeze on family income for people with three or more children -- will
:13:40. > :13:44.have. There is an assumption that the two child limit assumes equal
:13:45. > :13:51.control over in different families on making such decisions over
:13:52. > :13:55.whether to have children or not. And many women who are experiencing
:13:56. > :14:00.domestic abuse sexual finance and rape as a component of their
:14:01. > :14:04.experience -- domestic abuse, sexual violence was the women don't have
:14:05. > :14:13.control over their reproductive rights. Excuse me. Did you want to
:14:14. > :14:17.come in again? You have spoken about rights a lot in your responses, and
:14:18. > :14:22.I would like to understand your thoughts regarding the impact of the
:14:23. > :14:26.two child limit and the vocals on the rights of the child the mother.
:14:27. > :14:44.-- and the rate clause. There has been disagreement over
:14:45. > :14:51.what the claimant has to do to prove it. The woman writes her name, and a
:14:52. > :15:00.third-party professional helping her sets out the rest. This is an
:15:01. > :15:04.accurate, and as far as I am aware, there are no third-party referees in
:15:05. > :15:09.Scotland. They were willing to undertake this, being involved in
:15:10. > :15:15.such a dreadful situation. Can I ask you to give the committee or view on
:15:16. > :15:25.the impacts and rights of the child, and what has to happen? I am happy
:15:26. > :15:32.to start. The exemption rate, about the rights of the woman and the
:15:33. > :15:38.child, it contravenes women and children's rights to privacy. The
:15:39. > :15:43.form itself does require a lot more. Then just the woman putting her name
:15:44. > :15:48.on the form. She has to write her own name, write the name of the
:15:49. > :15:55.child, and sign to say she believes the child was conceived as a result
:15:56. > :16:00.of rape. The form at the top as in really large font, says it is a form
:16:01. > :16:08.you are filling in to say your child has been conceived as a result of
:16:09. > :16:11.coercion or rape. Something we believe would be extremely
:16:12. > :16:19.distressing falling to consider doing. We know from our work, and
:16:20. > :16:23.the work of Rape Crisis Scotland, that it would be traumatising.
:16:24. > :16:27.Having to contemplate filling in the form to say your child has been
:16:28. > :16:33.conceived as a result of rape would be for women, at a time not of their
:16:34. > :16:37.choosing to do so. Having no control on what might happen to the
:16:38. > :16:44.information. We agree with the equality and human rights
:16:45. > :16:51.commission, writing to the Minister, to say in their view in invasive
:16:52. > :16:58.reporting requirements or penalising women. Also it was the real issue,
:16:59. > :17:03.the child potentially finding out they were conceived as a result of
:17:04. > :17:07.rape. We know that women will go to huge lengths, it is the last thing
:17:08. > :17:13.they want their child to know that they were conceived as a result of
:17:14. > :17:17.rape. We know clinical psychologists have written to the Minister as well
:17:18. > :17:24.outlining their concerns about the impact it would have on women, and
:17:25. > :17:30.also of children. Because they work to support children as a result of
:17:31. > :17:40.rape, and her traumatising that can be. On the point about third-party
:17:41. > :17:45.referrers, we're not aware of any organisation you have agreed to be a
:17:46. > :17:52.third-party referrer in Scotland. There is a list of organisations
:17:53. > :17:56.under the survivors trust umbrella, organisations working with women who
:17:57. > :18:05.have experienced violence against women, and they have produced a kind
:18:06. > :18:09.of blanket membership list. From our discussions with the individual
:18:10. > :18:14.members on that list, none we have spoken to has affirmatively agreed
:18:15. > :18:19.to be a third-party referrer. One of the questions we have asked the
:18:20. > :18:22.Minister, how can this be implemented in Scotland, given the
:18:23. > :18:29.circumstance, and the communication from the Cabinet Secretary for
:18:30. > :18:36.health, that NHS staff will not be participating, as a result of it
:18:37. > :18:41.being a breach of their personal ethics, on human rights concerns.
:18:42. > :18:46.The House of Lords, the post-ledger scrutiny committee looked at this
:18:47. > :18:52.question. Looking at the two statutory incidents, framing what is
:18:53. > :19:00.now known as the rape laws, they asked the question of appeals.
:19:01. > :19:04.Howard appeals process would work. The DWP has articulated because of
:19:05. > :19:08.the third-party referrers, the DWP will not be involved in making the
:19:09. > :19:15.key deliberations, and have access to this sensitive information. The
:19:16. > :19:17.response they made to the House of Lords, that the usual appeals
:19:18. > :19:24.process would apply in the circumstance. DWP staff would have
:19:25. > :19:29.access to the most sensitive information, the contents of the
:19:30. > :19:35.disclosure, if there was any question about the veracity of it.
:19:36. > :19:40.You wanted to come and present a follow-up to your answer, to Alison
:19:41. > :19:49.Johnson, on the equality impact assessment. You meant specifically
:19:50. > :19:54.minority ethnic communities. We're talking about, from April of this
:19:55. > :20:00.year, so we don't have, I don't know what assumptions we are making. Have
:20:01. > :20:04.you had any discussions with organisations in the minority ethnic
:20:05. > :20:11.community? To my knowledge, nobody has raised the issue, linked to the
:20:12. > :20:20.Catholic community, which I am one, and you tend to have big families in
:20:21. > :20:27.the past. Tens to depend on which doctrine of the Cerci follow. That
:20:28. > :20:31.by not using contraception, and I wonder, do you have any figures on
:20:32. > :20:35.the size of families in the communities you are talking about,
:20:36. > :20:41.and have you had discussions with the churches and groups you are
:20:42. > :20:46.talking about? The churches, and the many faith -based community
:20:47. > :20:51.representative organisations made strong representations to the DWP
:20:52. > :20:57.during the formulation of this policy based on the concerns that
:20:58. > :21:01.the member raised. In our submission to the consultation which happened
:21:02. > :21:06.in November 20 16th of the DWP consulted on the implementation of
:21:07. > :21:14.the exceptions for a period of one month. We submitted, as did others,
:21:15. > :21:16.evidence outlining the issue for black, minority and ethnic
:21:17. > :21:29.communities. Faith -based communities. For terminating
:21:30. > :21:35.pregnancies that Heather Rose, when they are ready two children and
:21:36. > :21:39.there is a question about the evidence base on which the
:21:40. > :21:44.government is acting in this regard. One of the questions we have to the
:21:45. > :21:48.Minister, how many terminus nations do you expect to rise as a result of
:21:49. > :21:53.this policy Chris Burke it seems to us without a clear impact and
:21:54. > :22:00.quality assessment, and without a clear publication of any evidence or
:22:01. > :22:03.thinking on the part of UK Government, they are indeed
:22:04. > :22:09.expecting that women will terminate pregnancies arising when they
:22:10. > :22:15.already have two children. That is insupportable, given the attitude
:22:16. > :22:19.you outline for other religious communities to that particular
:22:20. > :22:25.medical practice. Interestingly, to us, the UK Government did not adopt
:22:26. > :22:31.the exception which is widely used in the case of American family caps,
:22:32. > :22:36.and this policy has very much been copied wholesale from those being
:22:37. > :22:45.introduced in 90s Clinton social welfare reform moves. It does not
:22:46. > :22:48.include an exception for the instances where long acting
:22:49. > :22:53.reversible contraception has failed. In America that was very much the
:22:54. > :22:57.case. If you use an implant, and that did not work to prevent
:22:58. > :23:04.pregnancy, you would also receive an exception. That very question was
:23:05. > :23:10.put to the House of Lords to the DWP, they came back and said we need
:23:11. > :23:16.something that is easy to prove. We are content with the exceptions as
:23:17. > :23:23.they stand. Which I think is quite inconsistent as a position about
:23:24. > :23:29.introducing thinking in families about the number of children they
:23:30. > :23:35.can afford. As to your question about having spoken to black,
:23:36. > :23:44.minority and ethnic organisations? Yes, they are members of Rape Crisis
:23:45. > :23:47.Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid, organisations which have contributed
:23:48. > :23:55.to the position of the umbrella organisations. In terms of the
:23:56. > :24:03.churches, drawing on the written material, and the written material
:24:04. > :24:08.regarding the policies. You wanted to come in? On a supplementary? I
:24:09. > :24:15.was interested in the comparisons that gendered through among the
:24:16. > :24:18.American case studies. I don't know whether there are any other points
:24:19. > :24:26.you want to draw out on that. Particularly the fact that the
:24:27. > :24:32.family captive not change behaviour. Actually pushing people further into
:24:33. > :24:38.poverty. Associating myself with the premises behind Alison Johnson's
:24:39. > :24:42.question, it is important to remember this policy will affect a
:24:43. > :24:46.huge amount of people who are in work. Given the research from
:24:47. > :24:54.Cardiff University which came out this week, 60% of those in poverty
:24:55. > :24:58.are in work. This policy is important to remember, where it
:24:59. > :25:05.sits, in terms of the social economic make-up of the UK. If you
:25:06. > :25:18.don't mind, because the American question has been raised. I would
:25:19. > :25:25.like to drill a bit harder in to the point raised about changing
:25:26. > :25:27.circumstances. Take a leaf from Women's Aid them in the policy
:25:28. > :25:35.ignores real life, when contraception fails, unemployment,
:25:36. > :25:38.ill-health. It would be good for all of us to understand what you're
:25:39. > :25:41.feeling is on the ground around those issues, and how the policy can
:25:42. > :25:58.affect? With Cas, particularly the point
:25:59. > :26:02.with families and work, with secure partners, falling in and out of the
:26:03. > :26:07.labour market, people receiving tax credits may need to reapply in the
:26:08. > :26:18.future, that will have an impact on the family cap policy. The question
:26:19. > :26:24.you raise about engendering the US evidence. I would be clear we are
:26:25. > :26:27.not experts on the US experience. We did a brief literature review memory
:26:28. > :26:33.of pulling together our response to the consultation, looking Iran for
:26:34. > :26:42.examples of where this had and had not functioned internationally. The
:26:43. > :26:47.findings in the US context, many families that had caps since the
:26:48. > :26:51.mid-90s, they have not really affected the number of children born
:26:52. > :26:55.into families. They have slightly increase the rate of pregnancy
:26:56. > :27:04.terminations, where state funding was available for those medical
:27:05. > :27:09.procedures. They have substantially impoverished women principally, lone
:27:10. > :27:14.parents, who were subject to those family caps. Although the context is
:27:15. > :27:18.slightly different, because they were principally applied to the
:27:19. > :27:24.types of social security payments received by people not in paid work.
:27:25. > :27:29.They have had the effect of making it so women could not afford such
:27:30. > :27:37.things as nappies, food for their children, housing costs. Really have
:27:38. > :27:43.profoundly impacted on women's security, dignity and adequate
:27:44. > :27:50.standard of living. Really acting against children's rights. In
:27:51. > :27:53.Scotland, we are trying to realise the ambitions of the Convention on
:27:54. > :27:59.the rights of the child. Everything that goes into the committee on the
:28:00. > :28:06.rights of the child, emphasises that. Social Security payments to
:28:07. > :28:15.parents is a fundamental part of ensuring children have an adequate
:28:16. > :28:28.standard of living. It will be something mentioned, we will see a
:28:29. > :28:34.growing impact of the policy, rough calculations on the number of births
:28:35. > :28:44.in Scotland, just over 7000 children born since the start of April. It is
:28:45. > :28:50.not a huge amount that would be affected by the policy as of yet.
:28:51. > :29:00.Something like 150 children born every day in Scotland. Numbers
:29:01. > :29:10.growing of people who will have a third child, then seek advice on how
:29:11. > :29:22.they can maximise their income through claiming tax credits or not.
:29:23. > :29:28.Quite a large amount of advice that we give is making claims for child
:29:29. > :29:36.tax credits, universal credit, for people in work, or could be in
:29:37. > :29:41.precarious or insecure work. Basically need support to pay basic
:29:42. > :29:50.living costs. The impact might be slightly
:29:51. > :29:57.unpredictable, we don't necessarily know what is going to happen in
:29:58. > :30:03.people's lives but also many people will need support from tax credits
:30:04. > :30:07.and universal credit in the future, and won't be able to get the
:30:08. > :30:20.additional support that would come for a third child. Do you want to
:30:21. > :30:23.come in? To supplement what Emma has said about the evidence from the
:30:24. > :30:29.United States, we also had a literature review and redesigned how
:30:30. > :30:33.that worked for women who are experiencing domestic abuse and
:30:34. > :30:38.there has been significant research done about the impact for women in
:30:39. > :30:43.that situation. The track meant that resulted has a women not being able
:30:44. > :30:48.to access Social Security -- the entrapment that resulted. To help
:30:49. > :30:52.them rebuild their lives and take care of their children but they also
:30:53. > :30:58.had similar domestic violence exemptions for women in that
:30:59. > :31:05.experience and this was found to be largely unused because women did not
:31:06. > :31:08.trust the welfare agency and felt shame and humiliation in having to
:31:09. > :31:16.use these in order to get Social Security for their children. And
:31:17. > :31:19.that's also the Parisian deprivations from that process meant
:31:20. > :31:27.they did not then go and access other forms of assistance and
:31:28. > :31:31.support and so that further impoverished them and their children
:31:32. > :31:36.because they slipped out of the system altogether and that was a
:31:37. > :31:44.concern in terms of women and children's health. I've done a lot
:31:45. > :31:49.of work recently with women and their own experiences, in terms of
:31:50. > :31:56.the impact on Social Security reform and their ability to rebuild their
:31:57. > :31:59.lives when they become lone parents following a relationship separation
:32:00. > :32:04.as a result of domestic abuse and often because of their circumstances
:32:05. > :32:06.where they have been prevented from working and they have been primary
:32:07. > :32:12.caregivers for their children for a long period, it is difficult for
:32:13. > :32:18.their paid employment, and so they are often ending up in low-paid
:32:19. > :32:22.insecure jobs where they need tax credits to supplement their income
:32:23. > :32:29.in order to be able to retain their independence. What we are beginning
:32:30. > :32:34.to see from some Womens Aid support workers, when women are coming for
:32:35. > :32:39.the initial assessment looking for support and have maybe been brought
:32:40. > :32:44.by social work or the police, and looking at what their entitlements
:32:45. > :32:50.will be to Social Security support, they often don't see these women
:32:51. > :32:53.again because they are having to weigh up either going to support
:32:54. > :33:00.themselves and their children in these circumstances and that is of
:33:01. > :33:07.huge concern to us and we have heard of evidence recently which has been
:33:08. > :33:09.given to the inquiry on the destitution of many women that we
:33:10. > :33:17.are seeing now in these circumstances. ... Increase of
:33:18. > :33:22.currencies that you describe. We are gathering case studies, and doing
:33:23. > :33:25.focus groups with women, but certainly that has been my
:33:26. > :33:29.experience in working with groups of women who have direct experience of
:33:30. > :33:32.these issues, that is what they are saying and that is what they are
:33:33. > :33:37.struggling to come to terms with when they are being encouraged to
:33:38. > :33:41.seek support that they should not be living with domestic abuse, but the
:33:42. > :33:48.reality of their lives afterwards, women with children, there is a real
:33:49. > :33:51.sense of injustice and that is why their lives have ended up and they
:33:52. > :33:57.often described it as a real struggle. They don't see a way out
:33:58. > :34:04.of this situation. Do you want to come in? I want to ask a couple of
:34:05. > :34:07.supplementary 's arising out of the question is that our son had a while
:34:08. > :34:14.ago, and thank you for your very powerful evidence -- questions that
:34:15. > :34:19.Alison had a while ago. The case you make against the two child cap is a
:34:20. > :34:24.case that makes it sound to me like very much this is a policy which is
:34:25. > :34:27.illegal. The arguments that you make about the contravention of the
:34:28. > :34:34.equality act and the argument that you make about privacy concerns and
:34:35. > :34:39.data protection concerns, they are not just political points, in which
:34:40. > :34:44.you are arguing that the policy is not wise and inappropriate, they are
:34:45. > :34:50.also legal points on which you are arguing that the policy is unlawful,
:34:51. > :34:57.and my first question arising out of what you have said, what action are
:34:58. > :35:07.your organisations taking to challenge these policies in the
:35:08. > :35:15.courts, in Scotland or in England? That particular one first. Emma. We
:35:16. > :35:32.are considering our options in that regard. Why wait? Mr Tomkins, if you
:35:33. > :35:37.could wait. I agree with what Emma has said, our first response has
:35:38. > :35:41.been to ask for much more detailed information from the minister on the
:35:42. > :35:49.issues we are concerned about and how they will be addressed. And I
:35:50. > :35:56.think as citizens advice has said, the policy is relatively new, and if
:35:57. > :36:05.in terms of looking for evidence and taking any further action, that
:36:06. > :36:16.needs to be developed. Do you want to come back in with your other
:36:17. > :36:25.supplementary? I mean, we don't to bring it in test cases, the way that
:36:26. > :36:29.other organisations who are looking to bring a legal challenge, but I
:36:30. > :36:38.think it would be something that the citizens advice Scotland would
:36:39. > :36:44.necessarily initiate. The reason why I asked that question, over the
:36:45. > :36:47.course of the last decade, legal actions taken in the courts have
:36:48. > :36:53.been a very successful means of putting the brakes on policies
:36:54. > :36:57.including welfare reform policies that groups such as the ones that
:36:58. > :37:05.you work with have thought to be contrary to basic provisions of the
:37:06. > :37:10.basic provisions of data protection or privacy law, so I think this is a
:37:11. > :37:18.useful avenue for you and your organisations, that you should be
:37:19. > :37:24.thinking about. It seems to me also, that the two child cap on tax
:37:25. > :37:31.credits is a test of something that was very important to the Smith
:37:32. > :37:36.Commission of which I was a member. What the Smith Commission did, was
:37:37. > :37:41.to agree that a whole range of welfare benefits should be devolved
:37:42. > :37:46.in full to this parliament and that in addition the Scottish parliament
:37:47. > :37:53.would have the power to top up any reserve to benefit. The idea being
:37:54. > :37:59.that the United Kingdom would set the floor, and the Scottish
:38:00. > :38:03.Parliament would not be able to lower the floor, but the United
:38:04. > :38:07.Kingdom would not set the ceiling. And if this parliament thought the
:38:08. > :38:11.floor had been set too low by the United Kingdom, we would have the
:38:12. > :38:19.power to top up any reserve benefit whether that is within devolved or
:38:20. > :38:24.not. And there has been a vote in this parliament, 91-31, that says
:38:25. > :38:29.this flaw has been set too low, so my question is, what pressure are
:38:30. > :38:32.you bringing to bear on the Scottish Government to exercise its powers to
:38:33. > :38:35.make sure that none of these issues apply in Scotland at all? Given that
:38:36. > :38:46.we have the power to do something we have the power to do something
:38:47. > :38:53.about that. But that question, Emma. -- for that question. Thank you for
:38:54. > :39:00.pursuing that question. The question of litigation is an interesting one
:39:01. > :39:07.for our organisation and in terms of pressure to bear, I would echo key
:39:08. > :39:11.point about there being a lot of discussions with the UK Government
:39:12. > :39:15.to run on this question, about whether ultimately the two child
:39:16. > :39:22.limit and its exemptions will be seen to be a useful policy. I think
:39:23. > :39:25.that there are a number of questions raised by the equality and human
:39:26. > :39:29.rights commission and our organisations, that I think we are
:39:30. > :39:33.still at the discussion stage of, and the most charitable
:39:34. > :39:38.interpretation is that maybe because of a lack of equality impact
:39:39. > :39:43.assessment, some of these issues have not been considered. By UK
:39:44. > :39:47.Government. So we are not at the end of the process of determining what
:39:48. > :39:54.is going to happen to the two child limit. The question for our
:39:55. > :40:00.organisation, then, which has been very much involved and engaged with
:40:01. > :40:05.the Scottish Government in the development of the new Social
:40:06. > :40:09.Security powers is ultimately best for women's equality and I think we
:40:10. > :40:15.would want to consider that question in the round, and are taking
:40:16. > :40:27.adequate impact quality assessment, using gender mean -- means tested
:40:28. > :40:31.methods, and which the Scottish minister has indicated would be part
:40:32. > :40:36.of development. The short answer is, we have not yet determined whether
:40:37. > :40:48.it is in most women's interests and in the interest of equality, to say
:40:49. > :40:55.whether that is the most effective avenue, or whether there would be
:40:56. > :41:01.other avenues. And that will require some modelling, perhaps, but also a
:41:02. > :41:07.clearer sense of the content of what will be in the Social Security Bill
:41:08. > :41:10.which will be forthcoming quite soon and we will continue to have those
:41:11. > :41:15.discussions and continue to push for women's equality and rights to be
:41:16. > :41:20.realised through the implementation of Social Security powers in
:41:21. > :41:41.Scotland. Do you want to come in on that one, Joe question not know.
:41:42. > :41:46.Joe? No. There is obviously, our priority is that it is simple and
:41:47. > :41:51.straightforward for people to claim the benefits they are entitled to,
:41:52. > :41:58.as it possibly can be, and in mitigating the policy as we have
:41:59. > :42:05.seen with schemes around the bedroom tax and the removal of housing
:42:06. > :42:13.support for 18-21 year olds, it tends to be necessarily quite
:42:14. > :42:19.complex and not as straightforward as not applying be policy in the
:42:20. > :42:24.first place would be. But that being said, if the Scottish Government was
:42:25. > :42:38.willing to make changes, we would welcome that. Supplementary is to
:42:39. > :42:43.that one? Very quickly. Given the potential cost of a judicial review
:42:44. > :42:50.to third parties, third sector organisations like yourself, and
:42:51. > :42:53.given the potential cost on any Scottish Government in terms of
:42:54. > :42:59.mitigation, shouldn't the focus remain on this policy at source and
:43:00. > :43:03.given there is a general election going on, shouldn't we be putting
:43:04. > :43:09.pressure on the UK Government in the coming weeks and continue to do so
:43:10. > :43:16.going forward, to bring... To abolish this policy at source? Which
:43:17. > :43:21.has been voted against in Scotland or at least a think about a
:43:22. > :43:30.geographical exclusion. I want to pick up on that. Absolutely. If the
:43:31. > :43:35.policy can be amended, and I mean the two child limit can be amended
:43:36. > :43:41.or changed or removed, that would be of most use to women in Scotland but
:43:42. > :43:43.also across the rest of the UK. Especially in Northern Ireland where
:43:44. > :43:52.there are devastating consequences of the way the exemptions break, --
:43:53. > :43:55.exemptions operate. Where there is exceptionally limited access to
:43:56. > :43:59.abortion health care. Incredibly difficult decisions to be made by
:44:00. > :44:02.the women of Northern Ireland who would not be assisted at all by any
:44:03. > :44:12.mitigation that was Scotland specific. We would consider the use
:44:13. > :44:15.of any of our members money which is what we would be using, to seek a
:44:16. > :44:33.review, and we would want to spend as little as possible...
:44:34. > :44:40.Basically we would welcome those changes, whether the UK
:44:41. > :44:41.Government would make them, or mitigate