25/05/2017 Scottish Parliament

Executive in general, policy worker, women's goodish raid. We have

brought the discretion by bringing the first question. I do know from

the submissions, other members will be asking further questions. The

child tax credit is an area which basically feels your time and people

ask most questions about child tax credits and they have been seeking

advice. The introduction of the cap, the increase, we have had people

enquiring and also how you perceive this legislation, which has gone

forward and how this will affect your clients. In terms of child tax

credits, it's one of the most common things that people will seek advice

on. Around 13,300 cases in the last year. In terms of, since the

introduction, because it's only been six weeks and because it's only

affecting children who were born after the 6th of April, there hasn't

been a huge spike and what we would expect to see is a gradual increase

over time. As more children are born and people will come for advice

about back. OK. -- about that. Our concern is for women who are

experiencing domestic abuse and the importance of Social Security as a

safety net for women when they leave an abusive partner. The evidence we

have submitted highlights the impact of the cuts to social security on

women especially parents, the majority of whom are women, lone

parents, and we see this limit as going to further impoverished women.

Which then limits their capacity for action. And their ability to make

choices and their ability to leave an abusive partner and for women,

deep to child limit, if they are having a third child, and the case

study that Weise omitted -- the two child limit, if they are having a

third child, and the case study that we submitted, with a woman who is

working part-time as a cleaner with a very insecure contract and is

pregnant but with ill health, as a result of domestic abuse, this is a

typical example of the women that Womens Aid works with, and this will

really affect women in this situation in terms of, can they make

that move to leave an abusive partner or not? They will have to

weigh this up and it reinforces the message is that women get from an

abusive partner, that they are not of equal value and they will be able

to manage on their own and their children will suffer as a result of

them leaving that partner. OK. We don't have service uses but along

with a range of women's organisations we have been doing

work to test some of the ideas around the proposed Social Security

changes and the use of the new powers in Scotland. Women are deeply

concerned by the introduction of the two child limit, extremely horrified

by the notion of the rape laws and other exemptions, but also have a

strong sense that this is a signal from the UK Government that women

who are living with poverty should not be having more than two children

and that the same choices about how to plan their lives and their

families are therefore not open in the same way and not supported by UK

Government which I think it's a profoundly stigmatising message to

send through the Social Security system. To follow up on that

slightly. When it's child tax credits top up, basically in your

opinion, if you are going to have three children and you are having to

produce this letter, if you are going forward for any kind of

benefits, would you perceive that people have too produced a letter as

well? What is the knock on effect? Most working families are not on

benefits as such and it might not have an affect on the other aspects

of the welfare system for these women? -- it might have an effect.

That is a good question, and something about which we are not

clear. The letter which we have sent to Damian Hines, UK minister for

employment, asked ten abroad questions -- abroad questions about

the way in which information will be gathered and stored, and how it will

be signified in communications which might need to be sent to other

agencies. There has been concern amongst England -based organisations

that web parents are making applications for free school meals

they will have to show a letter that is maybe coded in such a way that

makes it clear that a child has been conceived as a result of rape and we

are desperately concerned about the potential breach to privacy and

dignity of the child and of the mother that that would entail, but

that the implementation of the rape clause has been extremely opaque and

the recent we have written to the minister is to seek urgent

clarification on a range of questions that women are certainly

posing to us. The letter spells out a lot of our concerns about how that

information will be used, if women were to choose to complete that

form, which I think is questionable. And also the lack of progress see, I

think, as you said, if you are applying for a grant and you have to

provide proof of income, there are only a couple of reasons why you

might be receiving tax credits for three children and so how will that

information be protected. That's one of the key questions that we have.

Yes, I think... Losing the entitlement to tax credits will

result in a loss of income and we have seen from previous changes in

2012, and we had a glimpse with the issues around people's tax credits

being stopped and how much of an impact tax credits have on family

income is. That people will be driven further into hardship. In

terms of the technical interplay between the benefits. It might have

an effect on people's entitlement to other benefits. Need to go through,

I suppose, particular cases to see if there is a change of entitlement.

But, yeah, I think it's something that might have an impact on wider

things. Alison Johnson? Thank you. Thank you panel, especially for some

very informative written submissions. I note from the

submissions that there is a particular impact on the two child

limit on religious committees and black and minority ethnic

communities -- religious communities. I'm concerned about the

evidence base for this policy and it seems to come from a view that those

who claim child tax credits should have to be subject to the same

financial decisions as those who can't claim it, but as has been

noted, most people claiming tax credits are working, 69%, and there

are two parents in the home, 64%. Are there any weaknesses in the way

this policy has been justified? Yes, I think you have put your finger on

a number of weaknesses in the development of the policy. I think

our analysis of the statements that government has made throughout the

development of the two child limit but also the exemptions has been

that there has been very little clarity about the underlying

thinking behind the policy and the evidence base for the policy. And a

failure to impact assess the policy. And UK Government is required as all

public bodies are to undertake a quality impact assessment. The

equality and human rights commission has also written to Damian Hines to

say they don't feel this has happened. And therefore the impact

on those communities that you in the array, women, black and minority

ethnic people, has not been captured -- that you Nimrud.

There is not an evidence base which has been shown to the public to

explain why the UK Government would think this would incentivise

families to behave in a different way. There is one very brief

reference to works that the IFS has done in the impact assessment,

published on the welfare referred and work act, and that does not

amount to a commencing case to suggest that reducing tax credits

will encourage families to make different choices -- convincing

case. And the children they have. Common sense will tell us, if you

can claim child tax credits on till the age of your child being 20, that

people do not have a crystal ball to see into the future and bereavement,

illness, disability, family breakdown, blending your family with

that of another person, all of these things are not predicted by people,

but we know they happen to millions of families across the UK. To

compound the weakness of the argument for doing it in the first

place, comes I think the additional indignity that the needs of

communities which are protected by law including women have just not

been considered adequately in the development of this policy. Thank

you. Would anyone else like to comment? There is a range of

situations where people who... Are not claiming tax credits at the

point their child is born, might need to claim tax credits if their

family breaks up, if someone is made redundant, if someone falls ill, and

so it cannot be the case and sincerity at the time that when the

child was planned and born, -- cannot be the case that it was

conceived when the child was planned and born, that they would need tax

credits in the next few years. This will impact the lone parents in

particular, especially those who would have three or more children,

affected by other changes, as well, to the Social Security system. From

official figures published, it seems the reduction of the benefit cap,

57% of households affected in Scotland and lone parents with three

or more children. There is concern that there will be a double whammy

between the benefit cap and the changes to the tax credit system and

to other Social Security changes coming in such as the changes to

employment support allowance and the reduction... The removal of the

family element in tax credits, as well, we'll have quite a significant

squeeze on family income for people with three or more children -- will

have. There is an assumption that the two child limit assumes equal

control over in different families on making such decisions over

whether to have children or not. And many women who are experiencing

domestic abuse sexual finance and rape as a component of their

experience -- domestic abuse, sexual violence was the women don't have

control over their reproductive rights. Excuse me. Did you want to

come in again? You have spoken about rights a lot in your responses, and

I would like to understand your thoughts regarding the impact of the

two child limit and the vocals on the rights of the child the mother.

-- and the rate clause. There has been disagreement over

what the claimant has to do to prove it. The woman writes her name, and a

third-party professional helping her sets out the rest. This is an

accurate, and as far as I am aware, there are no third-party referees in

Scotland. They were willing to undertake this, being involved in

such a dreadful situation. Can I ask you to give the committee or view on

the impacts and rights of the child, and what has to happen? I am happy

to start. The exemption rate, about the rights of the woman and the

child, it contravenes women and children's rights to privacy. The

form itself does require a lot more. Then just the woman putting her name

on the form. She has to write her own name, write the name of the

child, and sign to say she believes the child was conceived as a result

of rape. The form at the top as in really large font, says it is a form

you are filling in to say your child has been conceived as a result of

coercion or rape. Something we believe would be extremely

distressing falling to consider doing. We know from our work, and

the work of Rape Crisis Scotland, that it would be traumatising.

Having to contemplate filling in the form to say your child has been

conceived as a result of rape would be for women, at a time not of their

choosing to do so. Having no control on what might happen to the

information. We agree with the equality and human rights

commission, writing to the Minister, to say in their view in invasive

reporting requirements or penalising women. Also it was the real issue,

the child potentially finding out they were conceived as a result of

rape. We know that women will go to huge lengths, it is the last thing

they want their child to know that they were conceived as a result of

rape. We know clinical psychologists have written to the Minister as well

outlining their concerns about the impact it would have on women, and

also of children. Because they work to support children as a result of

rape, and her traumatising that can be. On the point about third-party

referrers, we're not aware of any organisation you have agreed to be a

third-party referrer in Scotland. There is a list of organisations

under the survivors trust umbrella, organisations working with women who

have experienced violence against women, and they have produced a kind

of blanket membership list. From our discussions with the individual

members on that list, none we have spoken to has affirmatively agreed

to be a third-party referrer. One of the questions we have asked the

Minister, how can this be implemented in Scotland, given the

circumstance, and the communication from the Cabinet Secretary for

health, that NHS staff will not be participating, as a result of it

being a breach of their personal ethics, on human rights concerns.

The House of Lords, the post-ledger scrutiny committee looked at this

question. Looking at the two statutory incidents, framing what is

now known as the rape laws, they asked the question of appeals.

Howard appeals process would work. The DWP has articulated because of

the third-party referrers, the DWP will not be involved in making the

key deliberations, and have access to this sensitive information. The

response they made to the House of Lords, that the usual appeals

process would apply in the circumstance. DWP staff would have

access to the most sensitive information, the contents of the

disclosure, if there was any question about the veracity of it.

You wanted to come and present a follow-up to your answer, to Alison

Johnson, on the equality impact assessment. You meant specifically

minority ethnic communities. We're talking about, from April of this

year, so we don't have, I don't know what assumptions we are making. Have

you had any discussions with organisations in the minority ethnic

community? To my knowledge, nobody has raised the issue, linked to the

Catholic community, which I am one, and you tend to have big families in

the past. Tens to depend on which doctrine of the Cerci follow. That

by not using contraception, and I wonder, do you have any figures on

the size of families in the communities you are talking about,

and have you had discussions with the churches and groups you are

talking about? The churches, and the many faith -based community

representative organisations made strong representations to the DWP

during the formulation of this policy based on the concerns that

the member raised. In our submission to the consultation which happened

in November 20 16th of the DWP consulted on the implementation of

the exceptions for a period of one month. We submitted, as did others,

evidence outlining the issue for black, minority and ethnic

communities. Faith -based communities. For terminating

pregnancies that Heather Rose, when they are ready two children and

there is a question about the evidence base on which the

government is acting in this regard. One of the questions we have to the

Minister, how many terminus nations do you expect to rise as a result of

this policy Chris Burke it seems to us without a clear impact and

quality assessment, and without a clear publication of any evidence or

thinking on the part of UK Government, they are indeed

expecting that women will terminate pregnancies arising when they

already have two children. That is insupportable, given the attitude

you outline for other religious communities to that particular

medical practice. Interestingly, to us, the UK Government did not adopt

the exception which is widely used in the case of American family caps,

and this policy has very much been copied wholesale from those being

introduced in 90s Clinton social welfare reform moves. It does not

include an exception for the instances where long acting

reversible contraception has failed. In America that was very much the

case. If you use an implant, and that did not work to prevent

pregnancy, you would also receive an exception. That very question was

put to the House of Lords to the DWP, they came back and said we need

something that is easy to prove. We are content with the exceptions as

they stand. Which I think is quite inconsistent as a position about

introducing thinking in families about the number of children they

can afford. As to your question about having spoken to black,

minority and ethnic organisations? Yes, they are members of Rape Crisis

Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid, organisations which have contributed

to the position of the umbrella organisations. In terms of the

churches, drawing on the written material, and the written material

regarding the policies. You wanted to come in? On a supplementary? I

was interested in the comparisons that gendered through among the

American case studies. I don't know whether there are any other points

you want to draw out on that. Particularly the fact that the

family captive not change behaviour. Actually pushing people further into

poverty. Associating myself with the premises behind Alison Johnson's

question, it is important to remember this policy will affect a

huge amount of people who are in work. Given the research from

Cardiff University which came out this week, 60% of those in poverty

are in work. This policy is important to remember, where it

sits, in terms of the social economic make-up of the UK. If you

don't mind, because the American question has been raised. I would

like to drill a bit harder in to the point raised about changing

circumstances. Take a leaf from Women's Aid them in the policy

ignores real life, when contraception fails, unemployment,

ill-health. It would be good for all of us to understand what you're

feeling is on the ground around those issues, and how the policy can

affect? With Cas, particularly the point

with families and work, with secure partners, falling in and out of the

labour market, people receiving tax credits may need to reapply in the

future, that will have an impact on the family cap policy. The question

you raise about engendering the US evidence. I would be clear we are

not experts on the US experience. We did a brief literature review memory

of pulling together our response to the consultation, looking Iran for

examples of where this had and had not functioned internationally. The

findings in the US context, many families that had caps since the

mid-90s, they have not really affected the number of children born

into families. They have slightly increase the rate of pregnancy

terminations, where state funding was available for those medical

procedures. They have substantially impoverished women principally, lone

parents, who were subject to those family caps. Although the context is

slightly different, because they were principally applied to the

types of social security payments received by people not in paid work.

They have had the effect of making it so women could not afford such

things as nappies, food for their children, housing costs. Really have

profoundly impacted on women's security, dignity and adequate

standard of living. Really acting against children's rights. In

Scotland, we are trying to realise the ambitions of the Convention on

the rights of the child. Everything that goes into the committee on the

rights of the child, emphasises that. Social Security payments to

parents is a fundamental part of ensuring children have an adequate

standard of living. It will be something mentioned, we will see a

growing impact of the policy, rough calculations on the number of births

in Scotland, just over 7000 children born since the start of April. It is

not a huge amount that would be affected by the policy as of yet.

Something like 150 children born every day in Scotland. Numbers

growing of people who will have a third child, then seek advice on how

they can maximise their income through claiming tax credits or not.

Quite a large amount of advice that we give is making claims for child

tax credits, universal credit, for people in work, or could be in

precarious or insecure work. Basically need support to pay basic

living costs. The impact might be slightly

unpredictable, we don't necessarily know what is going to happen in

people's lives but also many people will need support from tax credits

and universal credit in the future, and won't be able to get the

additional support that would come for a third child. Do you want to

come in? To supplement what Emma has said about the evidence from the

United States, we also had a literature review and redesigned how

that worked for women who are experiencing domestic abuse and

there has been significant research done about the impact for women in

that situation. The track meant that resulted has a women not being able

to access Social Security -- the entrapment that resulted. To help

them rebuild their lives and take care of their children but they also

had similar domestic violence exemptions for women in that

experience and this was found to be largely unused because women did not

trust the welfare agency and felt shame and humiliation in having to

use these in order to get Social Security for their children. And

that's also the Parisian deprivations from that process meant

they did not then go and access other forms of assistance and

support and so that further impoverished them and their children

because they slipped out of the system altogether and that was a

concern in terms of women and children's health. I've done a lot

of work recently with women and their own experiences, in terms of

the impact on Social Security reform and their ability to rebuild their

lives when they become lone parents following a relationship separation

as a result of domestic abuse and often because of their circumstances

where they have been prevented from working and they have been primary

caregivers for their children for a long period, it is difficult for

their paid employment, and so they are often ending up in low-paid

insecure jobs where they need tax credits to supplement their income

in order to be able to retain their independence. What we are beginning

to see from some Womens Aid support workers, when women are coming for

the initial assessment looking for support and have maybe been brought

by social work or the police, and looking at what their entitlements

will be to Social Security support, they often don't see these women

again because they are having to weigh up either going to support

themselves and their children in these circumstances and that is of

huge concern to us and we have heard of evidence recently which has been

given to the inquiry on the destitution of many women that we

are seeing now in these circumstances. ... Increase of

currencies that you describe. We are gathering case studies, and doing

focus groups with women, but certainly that has been my

experience in working with groups of women who have direct experience of

these issues, that is what they are saying and that is what they are

struggling to come to terms with when they are being encouraged to

seek support that they should not be living with domestic abuse, but the

reality of their lives afterwards, women with children, there is a real

sense of injustice and that is why their lives have ended up and they

often described it as a real struggle. They don't see a way out

of this situation. Do you want to come in? I want to ask a couple of

supplementary 's arising out of the question is that our son had a while

ago, and thank you for your very powerful evidence -- questions that

Alison had a while ago. The case you make against the two child cap is a

case that makes it sound to me like very much this is a policy which is

illegal. The arguments that you make about the contravention of the

equality act and the argument that you make about privacy concerns and

data protection concerns, they are not just political points, in which

you are arguing that the policy is not wise and inappropriate, they are

also legal points on which you are arguing that the policy is unlawful,

and my first question arising out of what you have said, what action are

your organisations taking to challenge these policies in the

courts, in Scotland or in England? That particular one first. Emma. We

are considering our options in that regard. Why wait? Mr Tomkins, if you

could wait. I agree with what Emma has said, our first response has

been to ask for much more detailed information from the minister on the

issues we are concerned about and how they will be addressed. And I

think as citizens advice has said, the policy is relatively new, and if

in terms of looking for evidence and taking any further action, that

needs to be developed. Do you want to come back in with your other

supplementary? I mean, we don't to bring it in test cases, the way that

other organisations who are looking to bring a legal challenge, but I

think it would be something that the citizens advice Scotland would

necessarily initiate. The reason why I asked that question, over the

course of the last decade, legal actions taken in the courts have

been a very successful means of putting the brakes on policies

including welfare reform policies that groups such as the ones that

you work with have thought to be contrary to basic provisions of the

basic provisions of data protection or privacy law, so I think this is a

useful avenue for you and your organisations, that you should be

thinking about. It seems to me also, that the two child cap on tax

credits is a test of something that was very important to the Smith

Commission of which I was a member. What the Smith Commission did, was

to agree that a whole range of welfare benefits should be devolved

in full to this parliament and that in addition the Scottish parliament

would have the power to top up any reserve to benefit. The idea being

that the United Kingdom would set the floor, and the Scottish

Parliament would not be able to lower the floor, but the United

Kingdom would not set the ceiling. And if this parliament thought the

floor had been set too low by the United Kingdom, we would have the

power to top up any reserve benefit whether that is within devolved or

not. And there has been a vote in this parliament, 91-31, that says

this flaw has been set too low, so my question is, what pressure are

you bringing to bear on the Scottish Government to exercise its powers to

make sure that none of these issues apply in Scotland at all? Given that

we have the power to do something we have the power to do something

about that. But that question, Emma. -- for that question. Thank you for

pursuing that question. The question of litigation is an interesting one

for our organisation and in terms of pressure to bear, I would echo key

point about there being a lot of discussions with the UK Government

to run on this question, about whether ultimately the two child

limit and its exemptions will be seen to be a useful policy. I think

that there are a number of questions raised by the equality and human

rights commission and our organisations, that I think we are

still at the discussion stage of, and the most charitable

interpretation is that maybe because of a lack of equality impact

assessment, some of these issues have not been considered. By UK

Government. So we are not at the end of the process of determining what

is going to happen to the two child limit. The question for our

organisation, then, which has been very much involved and engaged with

the Scottish Government in the development of the new Social

Security powers is ultimately best for women's equality and I think we

would want to consider that question in the round, and are taking

adequate impact quality assessment, using gender mean -- means tested

methods, and which the Scottish minister has indicated would be part

of development. The short answer is, we have not yet determined whether

it is in most women's interests and in the interest of equality, to say

whether that is the most effective avenue, or whether there would be

other avenues. And that will require some modelling, perhaps, but also a

clearer sense of the content of what will be in the Social Security Bill

which will be forthcoming quite soon and we will continue to have those

discussions and continue to push for women's equality and rights to be

realised through the implementation of Social Security powers in

Scotland. Do you want to come in on that one, Joe question not know.

Joe? No. There is obviously, our priority is that it is simple and

straightforward for people to claim the benefits they are entitled to,

as it possibly can be, and in mitigating the policy as we have

seen with schemes around the bedroom tax and the removal of housing

support for 18-21 year olds, it tends to be necessarily quite

complex and not as straightforward as not applying be policy in the

first place would be. But that being said, if the Scottish Government was

willing to make changes, we would welcome that. Supplementary is to

that one? Very quickly. Given the potential cost of a judicial review

to third parties, third sector organisations like yourself, and

given the potential cost on any Scottish Government in terms of

mitigation, shouldn't the focus remain on this policy at source and

given there is a general election going on, shouldn't we be putting

pressure on the UK Government in the coming weeks and continue to do so

going forward, to bring... To abolish this policy at source? Which

has been voted against in Scotland or at least a think about a

geographical exclusion. I want to pick up on that. Absolutely. If the

policy can be amended, and I mean the two child limit can be amended

or changed or removed, that would be of most use to women in Scotland but

also across the rest of the UK. Especially in Northern Ireland where

there are devastating consequences of the way the exemptions break, --

exemptions operate. Where there is exceptionally limited access to

abortion health care. Incredibly difficult decisions to be made by

the women of Northern Ireland who would not be assisted at all by any

mitigation that was Scotland specific. We would consider the use

of any of our members money which is what we would be using, to seek a

review, and we would want to spend as little as possible...

Basically we would welcome those changes, whether the UK

Government would make them, or mitigate