Finance Committee

:00:32. > :00:42.Agenda item two, tax credits. We have two panel witnesses here. I

:00:43. > :00:48.would like to thank everyone for the submissions sent in. They were very

:00:49. > :00:53.thorough, and thank you very much. We also received a letter which had

:00:54. > :00:59.been copied into us, mentioned by Eric. Thank you very much for that.

:01:00. > :01:04.The first panel who have given evidence today are the policy

:01:05. > :01:08.officer for citizens advice Scotland, executive director in

:01:09. > :01:15.gender, and policy worker Scottish women's aid. I will open the

:01:16. > :01:18.discussion up by asking the first question. I know from the

:01:19. > :01:23.submissions, and I'm sure other members will ask further questions,

:01:24. > :01:28.that the child tax credit is an area which basically fills your time.

:01:29. > :01:32.People ask most questions about child tax credits when they are

:01:33. > :01:38.seeking advice. Can I therefore ask, with an introduction of the cap, if

:01:39. > :01:44.you have seen an increase in people enquiring, and also how you perceive

:01:45. > :01:55.this legislation which is going forwards will affect your clients?

:01:56. > :02:02.In terms of child tax credits is one of the most common things that

:02:03. > :02:09.people will seek advice on. Around 13,300 cases in the last year. Since

:02:10. > :02:17.the introduction, because it has only been six weeks, and because it

:02:18. > :02:22.is only affecting children who were born after the 6th of April, there

:02:23. > :02:29.has not been a huge spike. What we would expect to see is a gradual

:02:30. > :02:39.increase over time, as more third children are born and people will

:02:40. > :02:46.come in for advice about that. Thank you. Our concern is for women

:02:47. > :02:49.experiencing domestic abuse, and the importance of Social Security as a

:02:50. > :02:58.safety net for women when they leave an abusive partner. The evidence we

:02:59. > :03:02.have submitted highlights the impact of the cuts to social security on

:03:03. > :03:11.women, particularly low in parents, the majority of whom are women. We

:03:12. > :03:15.see the two child limit is going to further impoverished women, which

:03:16. > :03:20.then limits of their capacity for action, their ability to make

:03:21. > :03:25.choices, their ability to leave an abusive partner. I think for women,

:03:26. > :03:30.the two child limit, if they are having a third child, and I think

:03:31. > :03:34.the case study we submitted from the woman currently receiving support

:03:35. > :03:39.from one of our organisations, where she is working part-time as a

:03:40. > :03:45.cleaner on very insecure contract, currently pregnant, has ill health

:03:46. > :03:48.as a result of domestic abuse she has experienced, it is a typical

:03:49. > :03:54.example of the women that women's aid works with, and will really

:03:55. > :03:59.affect women in that situation, in terms of can they make that move to

:04:00. > :04:03.leave an abusive partner or not, and they will have to weigh that up

:04:04. > :04:08.really carefully. It also reinforces the message is that women get from

:04:09. > :04:12.an abusive partner, that they are not of equal value, that they will

:04:13. > :04:18.not be able to manage on their own, that the children will suffer as a

:04:19. > :04:24.result of them leaving that partner. We don't have the service users, as

:04:25. > :04:28.we are a policy and advocacy organisation but along with a range

:04:29. > :04:32.of women's organisations, we have been doing work to test ideas around

:04:33. > :04:38.the proposed Social Security changes and the use of new powers in

:04:39. > :04:43.Scotland. Women are deeply concerned by the introduction of the two child

:04:44. > :04:49.limit, extremely horrified by the notion of the rape clause and other

:04:50. > :04:53.exemptions, but also just have a strong claws -- a strong sense that

:04:54. > :04:57.this is a signal from the UK Government that women who are living

:04:58. > :05:02.with poverty should not be having more than two children, that the

:05:03. > :05:05.same choices about how to plan their lives and families are therefore not

:05:06. > :05:11.open in the same way and not supported by UK Government, which is

:05:12. > :05:20.a profoundly stigmatising message to send through the Social Security

:05:21. > :05:24.system. Just a follow-up, obviously child tax credits top up, so in your

:05:25. > :05:28.opinion, if you are going to have three children and you are having to

:05:29. > :05:31.produce this letter, if you are going forward for any other type of

:05:32. > :05:36.benefit, would you perceive that people have to produce a letter as

:05:37. > :05:41.well? How will it have a knock-on effect, if most people are working,

:05:42. > :05:45.working families are not on benefits, will it have a knock-on

:05:46. > :05:50.effect for any other aspect of welfare assistance for these women?

:05:51. > :05:57.That is a good question and it is something around which we are still

:05:58. > :06:02.unclear. The letter that Rape Crisis Scotland and we sent to Damian

:06:03. > :06:08.Hines, UK Minister for employment, asked ten broad questions about why

:06:09. > :06:14.-- about the way the information will be gathered, and stored, and

:06:15. > :06:18.how it will be signified in communications that may need to be

:06:19. > :06:23.shown to other agencies. There has been some concern among England

:06:24. > :06:27.-based organisations that when parents are making applications for

:06:28. > :06:31.free school meals, they will be required to show a letter that may

:06:32. > :06:39.be coded in such a way that makes it clear that a child has been

:06:40. > :06:42.conceived as a result of rape. We are desperately concerned about the

:06:43. > :06:47.potential breach to privacy and dignity of the child, and of the

:06:48. > :06:51.mother that that would entail. But the implementation of the rape

:06:52. > :06:57.clause has been extremely open ache, and so the reason we have written to

:06:58. > :07:00.the Minister is to seek urgent clarification on a range of

:07:01. > :07:07.questions that women are certainly posing to us. I do not know if Joe

:07:08. > :07:12.has... The letter spells out a lot of our concerns about how that

:07:13. > :07:18.information will be used. If women were to choose to complete a form,

:07:19. > :07:24.which is questionable. And also the lack of privacy. As Emma said, if

:07:25. > :07:29.you are applying for a school clothing grant and you have to

:07:30. > :07:32.provide proof of income, there are only a couple of reasons why you

:07:33. > :07:39.would be receiving tax credits for three children. And so how will that

:07:40. > :07:44.information be protected? I think that is one of the key questions we

:07:45. > :07:52.have. Would you like to come in on that? Losing entitlement to tax

:07:53. > :08:03.credits will result in a loss of income. We have seen from previous

:08:04. > :08:08.changes in 2012, issues around tax credits being stopped, how much of

:08:09. > :08:20.an impact tax credits has on family income. People can be driven further

:08:21. > :08:27.into hardship. In terms of the technical interplay between the

:08:28. > :08:37.benefits, it may have an effect on people's entitlement to other

:08:38. > :08:44.benefits. We would need to go through particular cases to see if

:08:45. > :08:49.there was a change of entitlement. But yes, I think it is something

:08:50. > :08:58.that may have an impact on the wider things. Allison Johnson, you wanted

:08:59. > :09:02.to come in. Thank you, convener. Thank you, panel, particularly for

:09:03. > :09:05.some informative written submissions. I note from the

:09:06. > :09:10.submissions that they will be a particular impact that the two child

:09:11. > :09:14.limit on religious communities, on loan parents, the majority of whom

:09:15. > :09:19.are women, and black and minority ethnic communities. I am concerned

:09:20. > :09:24.about the evidence base for the policy. It very much seems to come

:09:25. > :09:28.from a view that those who claim child tax credits should, as you

:09:29. > :09:31.said, have to be subject to the same financial decisions as those who

:09:32. > :09:38.cannot claim. But as has already been noted, most people claiming tax

:09:39. > :09:43.credits are working, 69%, and thereafter macro parents in the

:09:44. > :09:50.home, 64%. So do you think there are any weaknesses in the way this

:09:51. > :09:54.policy has been justified? Yes. I think you have put your finger on a

:09:55. > :10:01.number of weaknesses in the development of the policy. I think

:10:02. > :10:05.our analysis of the statements that the UK Government has made

:10:06. > :10:10.throughout the development of the two child limit, but then the

:10:11. > :10:15.exemptions, has been that there has been very little clarity about the

:10:16. > :10:18.underlying thinking behind the policy, about the evidence base for

:10:19. > :10:26.the policy, and certainly a failure to impact assessment policy. And the

:10:27. > :10:31.UK Government is required, as all public bodies are, to undertake a

:10:32. > :10:34.quality impact assessment. The equality and Human Rights Commission

:10:35. > :10:40.has also written to Damian Hines to say that they do not feel that this

:10:41. > :10:44.has happened. And therefore, the impact on those communities that you

:10:45. > :10:47.innumerate, women, black and minority ethnic people, people from

:10:48. > :10:52.religious communities, has not been captured. But more fundamentally,

:10:53. > :10:58.there is not an evidence base that has been shown to the public to

:10:59. > :11:01.explain why the UK Government would think this would incentivise

:11:02. > :11:08.families to behave in a different way. There is one very brief

:11:09. > :11:14.reference to some work that the IFS has done in the impact assessment

:11:15. > :11:18.published on the entirety of the welfare reform and work act, and

:11:19. > :11:23.that does not amount to a convincing case to suggest that reducing tax

:11:24. > :11:27.credits will encourage families to make different choices about the

:11:28. > :11:31.number of children they have. I think common sense would tell us

:11:32. > :11:35.that if you can claim child tax credits up until the age of your

:11:36. > :11:41.child being 20, that people do not have a crystal ball to see into the

:11:42. > :11:46.future, and so bereavement, illness, disability, family breakdown,

:11:47. > :11:51.blending your family with that of another person, all of these things

:11:52. > :11:57.are not predicted by people but we know that they happen to millions of

:11:58. > :11:59.families across the UK. So to compound the weakness of the

:12:00. > :12:05.argument for doing it in the first place, comes the additional

:12:06. > :12:09.indignity that the needs of communities which are protected by

:12:10. > :12:13.law, including women, have just not been considered adequately in the

:12:14. > :12:19.development of this policy. Would anyone else like to comment? Yes, I

:12:20. > :12:26.think there are a range of situations where people who are not

:12:27. > :12:29.claiming tax credits at the time their child is born will

:12:30. > :12:34.subsequently need to claim, if a family breaks up, if people fall

:12:35. > :12:38.ill, if someone is made redundant, for instance. So it is not

:12:39. > :12:46.necessarily the case that at the time the child was planned,

:12:47. > :12:49.conceived or born that people would realise or predict that they would

:12:50. > :12:58.need tax credits at some point in the next few years. You mentioned

:12:59. > :13:06.there was a particular impact on loan parents. Lone parents who would

:13:07. > :13:10.have three or more children, who would be affected by other changes

:13:11. > :13:16.to the social security system, from the official figures published. We

:13:17. > :13:21.know that since the reduction in the benefit cap, that 57% of households

:13:22. > :13:28.affected in London are lone parents with three or more children. So

:13:29. > :13:33.there is a concern that there will be a double whammy between the

:13:34. > :13:37.benefit cap, between the Ben -- changes to the credit system, and

:13:38. > :13:41.other social security changes, such as the changes to employment support

:13:42. > :13:45.allowance and the reduction, the removal of the family element in tax

:13:46. > :13:50.credits. That will have quite a significant squeeze on family income

:13:51. > :13:59.is for people with three or more children. I think also with women we

:14:00. > :14:12.are working with and supporting, there is an assumption that the two

:14:13. > :14:16.child limit assumes equal control. And for many women who are

:14:17. > :14:21.experiencing domestic abuse, sexual violence and rape as a component of

:14:22. > :14:30.that domestic abuse is really common. So women don't have control

:14:31. > :14:35.over their reproductive rights. Did you want to come back in, Alison?

:14:36. > :14:41.You have spoken about rights quite a lot in your responses. I would like

:14:42. > :14:44.to understand your thoughts regarding the impact of the two

:14:45. > :14:49.child limit and the rape laws on the rights of the child and the rights

:14:50. > :14:52.of the mother. It is fair to say there has been some disagreement

:14:53. > :14:58.even in the chamber here over what the claimant has to do to prove

:14:59. > :15:02.nonconsensual conception. And the Conservative leader actually said,

:15:03. > :15:05.quoting from the report, the woman writes her name and a third-party

:15:06. > :15:11.professional who is helping her sets out the rest. Others have said this

:15:12. > :15:15.is not accurate, and as far as I'm aware there are no third-party

:15:16. > :15:21.referees confirmed in Scotland. No one is willing to undertake this,

:15:22. > :15:25.just to be involved in such a dreadful situation. Can you give the

:15:26. > :15:28.committee your view on the impact on the rights of women and the child

:15:29. > :15:40.and what actually has to happen? I think it's... The exemption raises

:15:41. > :15:45.serious doubts about the rights of woman and the child and it

:15:46. > :15:51.contravenes women's and children's rights to privacy. The form itself

:15:52. > :15:56.does require a lot more than the woman just signing, putting her name

:15:57. > :16:03.on a form and signing it. She has to write her own name. She has to write

:16:04. > :16:07.the name of the child that and signs to say she believes that child was

:16:08. > :16:13.conceived as a result of rape. The form has at the top of it a large

:16:14. > :16:18.font which says it is the form you're filling in to say your child

:16:19. > :16:23.has been conceived as a result of coercion or rape. Which we believe

:16:24. > :16:30.would be extremely distressing for women to even consider doing and we

:16:31. > :16:35.know from our work and the work of rape crisis Scotland how

:16:36. > :16:39.re-traumatising that, having to contemplate filling in a form to say

:16:40. > :16:43.that your child has been conceived as a result of rape would be for

:16:44. > :16:48.women at a time not of their choosing to do so and having no

:16:49. > :16:53.control over what might happen to that information. So we agree with

:16:54. > :16:59.the Equality and Human Rights Commission who wrote to the minister

:17:00. > :17:06.to say that in their view the invasive reporting requirements of

:17:07. > :17:12.intimate details was penalising woman and also was the real issue

:17:13. > :17:14.for women of their child perhaps potentially finding out that they

:17:15. > :17:19.were conceived as a result of rape and we know that women will go to

:17:20. > :17:25.huge lengths, that is the last thing they want their child to know they

:17:26. > :17:30.were conceived as a result of rape. We know that 80 clinical

:17:31. > :17:34.psychologists have written to the minister outlining their concerns

:17:35. > :17:40.and the impact that would have on women and also on children, because

:17:41. > :17:43.they work to support children who have found out they have been

:17:44. > :17:51.conceived as a result of rape and how traumatising that can be for

:17:52. > :17:55.children. On the point about third party referrers, we are not aware of

:17:56. > :18:01.any organisation that has agreed to be a third party referrer in

:18:02. > :18:11.Scotland. The DWP has aries of organisations under the survivor's

:18:12. > :18:16.trust umbrella, which is a body for organisations that work with women

:18:17. > :18:20.who have experienced violence and they have produced a blanket

:18:21. > :18:26.membership list from our discussion with the individual members, none we

:18:27. > :18:32.have spoken to has agreed to be a referrer. One question we have asked

:18:33. > :18:37.the minister is that, how can think be implemented in Scotland, given

:18:38. > :18:42.that circumstance and given the communication from the cabinet

:18:43. > :18:47.Secretary for health that NHS staff will not be participating, as a

:18:48. > :18:52.breach of they believe their professional ethics, given human

:18:53. > :18:58.rights concerns. I think the House of Lords when the postlegislative

:18:59. > :19:02.scrutiny committee looks at this question, looked at the two

:19:03. > :19:08.statutory instruments that framed what is known as the rape clause,

:19:09. > :19:14.they asked a question about appeals and how an appeals process would

:19:15. > :19:19.work, because the DWP has articulated because of third party

:19:20. > :19:22.referrers, DWP staff will not be involved in making deliberation and

:19:23. > :19:30.won't have access to this sensitive information. The response that the

:19:31. > :19:36.DWP was the usual appeals process would apply in this circumstance and

:19:37. > :19:40.therefore DWP staff would have access to the most sensitive

:19:41. > :19:48.information, the contents of the disclosure if there was any question

:19:49. > :19:54.about the voracity of it. You wanted to come in? Yes a follow up to your

:19:55. > :20:01.answer to Alison on equality impact assessment. You mentioned

:20:02. > :20:06.specifically minority ethnic communities, we are talking about

:20:07. > :20:11.from April of this year, so we don't yet have you know, I don't know what

:20:12. > :20:18.assumptions we are making, but have you had any discussion with any

:20:19. > :20:22.organisations in the minority ethnic community and to my knowledge, no

:20:23. > :20:25.one has raised the issue of the Catholic community, of which I'm

:20:26. > :20:34.one, who tend to have big families or did in the past, and dependses

:20:35. > :20:39.view of what doctrine of the church you follow, but many women will

:20:40. > :20:44.follow the doctrine of the church by not using contraception. I mean do

:20:45. > :20:50.you have figures on the size of families in the communities that

:20:51. > :20:54.you're talking about and have you had discussions with the churches

:20:55. > :21:00.and the groups you're talking about. The churches and many faith-based

:21:01. > :21:03.community representative organisations made strong

:21:04. > :21:10.representations to the DWP during the performance lacing of the policy

:21:11. > :21:16.-- formulation of the policy based on concerns about this. In the

:21:17. > :21:21.consultation in November 2016 the DWP consulted on the implementation

:21:22. > :21:28.of exceptions for a period of one month. We sub mimented as others did

:21:29. > :21:35.- sub mimented evidence that outlined the issue for black and

:21:36. > :21:40.minority ethnic and faith-based communities and others who wouldn't

:21:41. > :21:46.want to access contraception or terminate pregnancies that arose

:21:47. > :21:51.when they already had two children. There is a question about the...

:21:52. > :21:55.Evidence-base on which the Government is acting and one

:21:56. > :22:00.question we have put to the minister is, how many term nations do you

:22:01. > :22:06.expect to arise as a result of this policy? Because it seeps to us

:22:07. > :22:09.without a clear equality impact assessment and without a clear

:22:10. > :22:15.publication of any evidence or thinking on the part of the UK

:22:16. > :22:20.Government that they are indeed expecting that women will terminate

:22:21. > :22:26.pregnancies that arise when they already have two children. I think

:22:27. > :22:30.that is insupportable given the attitude you have outlined of some

:22:31. > :22:39.religious and other communities to that particular Med xal practice.

:22:40. > :22:44.Interestingly to us the UK Government did not adopt the

:22:45. > :22:51.exception that is used in the case of American family caps and this

:22:52. > :22:56.policy has been copied from those in nineties Clinton welfare reform

:22:57. > :23:01.moves, it doesn't include an exception for the instances where

:23:02. > :23:08.long acting reversible contraception has failed. In America that was the

:23:09. > :23:13.case, if you used an IUD or an implant and that did not work, you

:23:14. > :23:18.would also receive an exception. That very question was put by the

:23:19. > :23:22.House of Lords to the DWP, who came back and said, we really need

:23:23. > :23:29.something which is easy to prove and so we are content with the

:23:30. > :23:38.exceptions as they stand. Which I think is quite inconsistent as a

:23:39. > :23:42.position about inducing thinking in families about the number of

:23:43. > :23:56.children they can afford. As to your question about have we spoken to

:23:57. > :23:58.black and minority ies and yes and they have specific, any service

:23:59. > :24:03.provision services that have contributed to the position of their

:24:04. > :24:07.umbrella organisations and in terms of the churches, we have drawn on

:24:08. > :24:13.the written material they have produced in response to these

:24:14. > :24:27.policies. Do you want to come in on this? I was interested in the

:24:28. > :24:31.comparisons that Engender drew among the American case studies and I

:24:32. > :24:39.don't know if there is any other points you want to draw out on that,

:24:40. > :24:42.particularly the fact that the family cap didn't change behaviour

:24:43. > :24:50.and actually pushed people further into poverty. I think I associate

:24:51. > :24:55.myself with the premises behind Alison Johnson's question, it is

:24:56. > :25:00.important to remember that this policy will affect a huge amount of

:25:01. > :25:07.people who are in work and given the research from Cardiff University

:25:08. > :25:12.that 60% of families in poverty are in work, this policy is important to

:25:13. > :25:19.remember that where this policy sits in terms of social, economic make up

:25:20. > :25:23.of the UK. I also if you don't mind, because the American question has

:25:24. > :25:31.been raised, as well as information on the American question... I would

:25:32. > :25:36.like to drill harder into the point raised about changing circumstances.

:25:37. > :25:41.Because I think that's, particularly from Women's Aid, you have said

:25:42. > :25:47.before that the policy ignores real life when contraception fails or

:25:48. > :25:51.there is unemployment or ill health and I think it would be good for all

:25:52. > :25:55.of us to understand what your feeling is on the ground around

:25:56. > :26:00.those issues and how this policy is and can affect and with Kath as

:26:01. > :26:10.well, although the statement was rightly made this will apply to new

:26:11. > :26:14.claimants, is it not important to remember about families being in

:26:15. > :26:20.work, if that is insecure work and people who are receiving tax credits

:26:21. > :26:29.may need to reapply in future and that will have an impact in terms of

:26:30. > :26:32.this family cap policy. So the question that you raise about

:26:33. > :26:39.Engender and the US evidence. I would be clear that we are not

:26:40. > :26:42.experts on the US experience, but we did a brief literature review when

:26:43. > :26:47.we were pulling together a response to the consultation and looking

:26:48. > :26:51.around for examples of where this had or had not functioned. The

:26:52. > :26:55.findings within the American context and in many states have had family

:26:56. > :27:00.caps in operation since the nineties, has been that they have

:27:01. > :27:05.not at all really affected the number of children born into

:27:06. > :27:12.families. They have slightly increased the rate of pregnancy

:27:13. > :27:22.terminations where state funding was available for those medical

:27:23. > :27:26.procedures and they have substantially impoverished women,

:27:27. > :27:29.principally lone parents and although the context is slightly

:27:30. > :27:34.different, because they were principally applied to the types of

:27:35. > :27:40.social security payments received by people not in work, they have had an

:27:41. > :27:45.effect of making its so that women could not afford such things as

:27:46. > :27:51.nappies, food for their children, housing costs. So really have

:27:52. > :28:00.profoundly impacted on women's security and dignity and standard of

:28:01. > :28:06.living and acted against children's rights and in Scotland we are trying

:28:07. > :28:10.to realise the ambitions of the convention on the rights of the

:28:11. > :28:16.child. Everything that goes into the committee on the rights of the child

:28:17. > :28:23.emphasises that social security payments to parents is a fundamental

:28:24. > :28:32.part of ensuring that children have an adequate standard of living. Do

:28:33. > :28:37.you want to come in? Yes it would be something that you mentioned... We

:28:38. > :28:44.will see a growing impact of the policy just doing a bit of... Rough

:28:45. > :28:52.calculations on the number of births in Scotland, there has been over

:28:53. > :28:59.7,000 children born since the start of April. So it's not a huge amount

:29:00. > :29:07.that would be affected by the policy as yet. But there is something like

:29:08. > :29:15.around 150 children born every day in Scotland. So the numbers are

:29:16. > :29:25.growing of people who will have a third child and then seek advice on

:29:26. > :29:34.how they can maximise their incomes. That's through claiming tax credits

:29:35. > :29:40.or not. So there will... Quite a large amount of advice we give is

:29:41. > :29:49.about making claims for child tax credits and for people who are

:29:50. > :29:58.either in work, they could be in precarious or insecure work or other

:29:59. > :30:05.work that needs support to pay basically the living costs. So I

:30:06. > :30:11.think it's going to be something that the impact may be slightly

:30:12. > :30:21.unpredictable in the extent we don't know... What's going to happen in

:30:22. > :30:27.people's lives but also the people will need support from tax credits

:30:28. > :30:30.in the future and won't be able to get the additional support that

:30:31. > :30:45.would come for a third child. Supplement what Emma said about the

:30:46. > :30:52.evidence from the United States, we did a quick literature review and

:30:53. > :30:55.find out how that worked for women experiencing domestic abuse and

:30:56. > :31:10.there have been some stuff coming out of research.

:31:11. > :31:20.To rebuild their lives and take care of their children but they did have

:31:21. > :31:29.similar experiences and they were largely unused because women didn't

:31:30. > :31:38.trust the agency and felt shame and humiliation in having to use these

:31:39. > :31:47.in order to get Social Security. The privacy deprivations from that

:31:48. > :31:51.process. That further impoverished them and their children because they

:31:52. > :31:57.began to slip out of the system altogether. That was a concern in

:31:58. > :32:09.terms of the women and children's health. We all saw no from the work

:32:10. > :32:13.I have done recently with women researching their own experiences.

:32:14. > :32:17.The impact of social security reform on their ability to rebuild their

:32:18. > :32:19.lives and become lone parents. Following the relationship

:32:20. > :32:38.separation. This difficult for them to access

:32:39. > :32:45.they are often ending up in low paid and insecure jobs where they need

:32:46. > :32:49.tax credits to supplement their income and to retain their

:32:50. > :32:58.independence. What we are beginning to see, support workers, when women

:32:59. > :33:04.come for an initial assessment for support or brought by the police or

:33:05. > :33:07.social work and looking at what they're entitlement will be to

:33:08. > :33:14.Social Security support, they often don't see these women again because

:33:15. > :33:17.they're having to weigh up her they're going to manage to support

:33:18. > :33:23.themselves and their children in the circumstances. That's really a huge

:33:24. > :33:29.concern to us and we have found evidence recently through the

:33:30. > :33:32.equality and human rights committee on the destitution of many women

:33:33. > :33:40.that we're seeing now in the circumstances. An increase in

:33:41. > :33:44.occurrences of what you've described. A lot of it is anecdotal

:33:45. > :33:48.regarding case studies and focus groups with women. That has been my

:33:49. > :33:52.experience in working with groups of women who have direct experience of

:33:53. > :33:57.these issues is that it is that it's what they're saying and struggling

:33:58. > :34:00.to come to terms with one they're encouraged to seek support that they

:34:01. > :34:11.shouldn't be living with domestic abuse but the reality of their lives

:34:12. > :34:14.after it is, particularly women the children, it leaves them with a

:34:15. > :34:18.sense of injustice and they often described as a real struggle. They

:34:19. > :34:21.don't see a way out of this situation.

:34:22. > :34:27.Adam, will you come in with a supplementary? A couple of

:34:28. > :34:30.supplementary of questions that Alison was asking a while ago. Think

:34:31. > :34:42.it very much for your very powerful evidence. The case that you make

:34:43. > :35:03.against the two child cap is a case that it is a policy that's illegal.

:35:04. > :35:13.Not arguing that the policy is unwise or inappropriate, they are

:35:14. > :35:19.legal points. My first question arising out of what you said so far

:35:20. > :35:25.is what action are your organisation is taking or proposing to take to

:35:26. > :35:38.challenge the policy in the courts in Scotland or England? I think we

:35:39. > :35:50.are considering our options in that regard. Why wait? If you would let

:35:51. > :35:56.the witness coming. Do you want to come back and on that one. I would

:35:57. > :36:00.agree with what ever he said. Foot on the first response has been to

:36:01. > :36:13.ask for much more detailed information from the Minister. I

:36:14. > :36:21.think as citizens advice have said, the policy is new. In terms of

:36:22. > :36:23.looking for evidence of taking any further action, that needs to be

:36:24. > :36:44.developed. We don't tend to bring test cases

:36:45. > :36:52.and there are other organisations looking at whether it's possible to

:36:53. > :36:56.bring a legal challenge but I think it would be something that the

:36:57. > :37:04.citizens advice Scotland would necessarily initiate. There is my

:37:05. > :37:09.outside question because over the course of the last decade or more,

:37:10. > :37:16.legal action taken in the court have been a very successful means of

:37:17. > :37:21.putting brakes on policies including welfare reform policies. The groups

:37:22. > :37:24.such as the ones you work with have thought to be contrary to basic

:37:25. > :37:29.provisions of the equality legislation or the provisions of

:37:30. > :37:34.data protection or privacy law. I think it's a useful avenue for you

:37:35. > :37:43.and your organisations to be thinking about. The second question

:37:44. > :37:50.is this, it seems to me also that the two child cap on tax credits is

:37:51. > :37:54.a test of something that was very important to the Smith commission,

:37:55. > :38:01.of which I was a member. What the Smith commission did was to agree

:38:02. > :38:06.that a whole range of welfare benefits should be devolved in full

:38:07. > :38:11.to this parliament and that in addition, the Scottish parliament

:38:12. > :38:16.would have the power to top up any reserved benefit. The idea being

:38:17. > :38:22.that the United Kingdom would set the floor on this parliament

:38:23. > :38:25.wouldn't have the power to lower that floor but the United Kingdom

:38:26. > :38:29.would not set the ceiling and if this parliament thought that the

:38:30. > :38:34.flaw had been set too low by the United Kingdom, we would have the

:38:35. > :38:41.power in this parliament to top up any reserved benefit, whether it

:38:42. > :38:44.is... Which would have been in devolved competence. There has been

:38:45. > :38:49.a vote in this parliament that says this flaw has been set to know, so

:38:50. > :38:54.my question is, what pressure are you bringing to bear on the Scottish

:38:55. > :38:58.Government to exercise its powers to ensure that none of these issues you

:38:59. > :39:09.are talking about apply in Scotland at all, given that we have the power

:39:10. > :39:13.to do something about it? Thank you for your advice about pursuing

:39:14. > :39:22.strategic litigation. The question about mitigation, I think, is quite

:39:23. > :39:27.an interesting one for our organisations and in terms of

:39:28. > :39:30.pressure to bear, I would echo the points about there being a lot of

:39:31. > :39:37.discussion with UK Government still to run on this question about

:39:38. > :39:42.whether ultimately the two child limit and its exemptions will be

:39:43. > :39:47.seen to be a useful policy. I think that there are a number of questions

:39:48. > :39:50.raised by the equality and human rights commission and our

:39:51. > :39:54.organisations that I think we are still at the discussion stage of and

:39:55. > :39:59.I think the most charitable interpretation is that perhaps the

:40:00. > :40:04.cause of a lack of equality impact assessment, some of these issues

:40:05. > :40:09.simply haven't yet been considered by UK Government. We are certainly

:40:10. > :40:15.not at the end of the process. The process of determining what would

:40:16. > :40:19.happen to the two child limit. The question for our organisation, which

:40:20. > :40:25.has been very much involved and engaged with the Scottish Government

:40:26. > :40:30.in the development of the new Social Security powers, is what is

:40:31. > :40:40.ultimately best for women's equality and we would want to consider that

:40:41. > :40:43.question undertaking adequate impact assessment and using mainstream

:40:44. > :40:49.approaches and pursuing the principles of dignity and human

:40:50. > :40:53.rights, which the Scottish minister for social security has indicated

:40:54. > :41:00.will be part of development. The short answer is that we have not yet

:41:01. > :41:03.determined whether it is in most women's interests and in the

:41:04. > :41:07.interest of women's equality to propose the mitigation on the

:41:08. > :41:10.specific policy as being the most useful avenue or actually a

:41:11. > :41:15.different decision with regard to the use of score Scottish Social

:41:16. > :41:18.Security powers and the budget is thereof would be most in women's

:41:19. > :41:24.interests and that would obviously require some modelling, perhaps, and

:41:25. > :41:30.a clearer sense of the content of what will be in the Social Security

:41:31. > :41:35.Bill which will be coming quite soon. We will continue to have those

:41:36. > :41:39.discussions and continue to push for women's equality and rights to be

:41:40. > :41:45.realised through the of additional Social Security powers Scotland.

:41:46. > :41:54.Would you want to common on this one? See people want to come in on a

:41:55. > :41:58.supplementary. Just basically, we welcome the changes, whether the UK

:41:59. > :42:07.Government or the Scottish Government were to mitigate them,

:42:08. > :42:10.there is obviously, our priority is that it is as simple and

:42:11. > :42:16.straightforward for people to claim benefits they are entitled to as it

:42:17. > :42:23.possibly can be. In mitigating policies, as we seem with the

:42:24. > :42:30.schemes run the bedroom tax and the removal of housing support for

:42:31. > :42:37.ageing- 21-year-olds, -- 18- 21 euros, it tends to be unnecessarily

:42:38. > :42:41.complicated and not as straightforward as not applying. The

:42:42. > :42:47.policy in the first place would be. That being said, if the Scottish

:42:48. > :42:57.Government is willing to make changes, then we would welcome that.

:42:58. > :43:09.Very quickly, given the potential cost of a judicial review to third

:43:10. > :43:16.sector organisations like yourself and given the potential cost on the

:43:17. > :43:20.Scottish Government given mitigation, shouldn't the focus

:43:21. > :43:22.remain right now on the policy at source and given there's a general

:43:23. > :43:27.election going on at the moment, should be not be putting pressure on

:43:28. > :43:33.the UK Government in the coming weeks and continue to do so going

:43:34. > :43:39.forward to abolish this policy at source, the policy that has been

:43:40. > :43:48.voted against in Scotland or at least to think about the

:43:49. > :43:56.geographical exclusion. I think if the policy can be amended and I mean

:43:57. > :43:59.the two child limit can be amended, changed or removed, that would

:44:00. > :44:05.ultimately be of most use to women in Scotland but across the rest of

:44:06. > :44:12.the UK, particularly in Northern Ireland where there are devastating

:44:13. > :44:17.consequences weather is mandatory reporting of serious crimes to the

:44:18. > :44:20.police and fire there is exceptionally limited access to

:44:21. > :44:24.abortion health, so incredibly difficult decisions to be made by

:44:25. > :44:26.the women of Northern Ireland who would not be assisted by any

:44:27. > :44:31.mitigation that was college specific.

:44:32. > :44:41.We could consider the use of our members' money to seek judicial

:44:42. > :44:46.money and would wish to spend as little as possible in achieving our

:44:47. > :44:55.policy ambitions. Anybody want to come back on that? No. Thank you. To

:44:56. > :45:00.bring the questions back to Scotland, if I understand you

:45:01. > :45:04.correctly, certainly Emma Rich, you say the whole issue and the issues

:45:05. > :45:08.that arises are being considered against the back ground of other

:45:09. > :45:15.matters and consideration and how the Scottish Government takes things

:45:16. > :45:19.forward. It's always easy to criticise a policy of whatever type

:45:20. > :45:23.and much more difficult to give an answer which provides a better way

:45:24. > :45:28.forward. I'm wanting to know from each of you that your organisations

:45:29. > :45:33.will be providing specific proposals to the Scottish Government as to how

:45:34. > :45:38.to approach this matter in context of social security system in

:45:39. > :45:50.Scotland, which of course is now and will increasingly perhaps differ

:45:51. > :45:55.from that in England. Engender has been creating a coalition of women's

:45:56. > :46:02.organisations working on social surt for a number of years. We have been

:46:03. > :46:08.vigorously critical of some of the implementation of social security in

:46:09. > :46:13.Scotland and what we see as weaknesses in gender mainstreaming

:46:14. > :46:17.within that. We will continue to be challenging to the Scottish

:46:18. > :46:22.Government as it develops it proposals for the use of devolved

:46:23. > :46:26.social security powers and would be commenting in great detail on the

:46:27. > :46:36.bill and engaging in all the consultation processes available us

:46:37. > :46:39.to to achieve that. We have been partnering with Engender and other

:46:40. > :46:44.women's organisations on providing evidence to the committee as well as

:46:45. > :46:50.reporting on our concerns about how social security has been implemented

:46:51. > :46:55.in Scotland and in particular campaigning on the need for split

:46:56. > :46:59.payments for universal credit as a means of ensuring women's financial

:47:00. > :47:03.independence and will continue to do that until it's actually happening

:47:04. > :47:16.for women in Scotland. Thank you. Did you want to comment on that?

:47:17. > :47:25.Yes, they're taking a substantial amount of work on the new security

:47:26. > :47:32.system. It is an opportunity from the work we have done... The

:47:33. > :47:37.substantial amount of engagement with CAB clients, advisors have

:47:38. > :47:42.submitted extensive evidence to the Scottish Government's consultation

:47:43. > :47:52.on a regular basis about details of the new system. So it is one of our

:47:53. > :48:00.biggest policy priorities over the next year. A small one. A quick

:48:01. > :48:05.follow up, on that, have you got draft proposals in relation to this

:48:06. > :48:09.particular issue that you have provided to the Scottish Government

:48:10. > :48:15.at this point for an alternative or is it as I understood Emma Rich

:48:16. > :48:19.said, something you're looking at in the over all picture, rather than

:48:20. > :48:24.saying the best way to respond to this particular issue that you're

:48:25. > :48:29.here to talk about today? I suppose I would refer back to my answer to

:48:30. > :48:33.Adam Tompkins and say that the question of how best to respond to

:48:34. > :48:39.what ultimately happens with this policy and we don't yet know the out

:48:40. > :48:43.come, there are a number of conversations which the minister's

:48:44. > :48:48.been engaged in, once the outcome of that is known we will be able more

:48:49. > :48:54.effectively I think to say what we think Scottish Government should use

:48:55. > :49:00.its resource in implementing the new social security powers to do that we

:49:01. > :49:05.will work with accuse downpourics o' - academics to do modelling,

:49:06. > :49:10.simulation, we have been involved in expert groups looking at some of the

:49:11. > :49:13.detailed entitlements within the new social security system. We will be

:49:14. > :49:18.contributing to discussions about the establishment of the agency. So

:49:19. > :49:25.we will be bringing details, proposals as detailed as we can with

:49:26. > :49:30.our capacity forward when the time is right. At the moment, we wouldn't

:49:31. > :49:40.want to comment on this policy in a vacuum as regards to mitigation.

:49:41. > :49:45.George Adams. Thank you and good morning, it has been, I have enjoyed

:49:46. > :49:49.listening to the evidence. Sometimes in this place you end up thinking

:49:50. > :49:54.you have heard everything when you hear a Tory member say that third

:49:55. > :49:57.sector organisations could run to the corporates to try and sort

:49:58. > :50:00.legislation, you have to ask yourself what kind of place are we

:50:01. > :50:04.working in here? And what environment. When at the end of the

:50:05. > :50:09.day would you not think it would be the case a better idea for an

:50:10. > :50:14.organisations like yourself to actually spend your members' money

:50:15. > :50:17.on other things and trying to mend Tory policies in Westminster. My

:50:18. > :50:21.main question, because I always seem to get here is the fact that from

:50:22. > :50:27.the opposition is to litigate or mitigate. That seems to be OK if

:50:28. > :50:31.you're a lawyer and many of the Tory benches are lawyers, that is maybe

:50:32. > :50:35.good for them. But let's get the policy right and get something

:50:36. > :50:41.sorted and do it the proper way and get the policy correct. We know this

:50:42. > :50:46.policy is immoral at the moment, one of the the things Engender said was

:50:47. > :50:52.that in America some of the states when they went down this route, and

:50:53. > :50:58.decide they would have a family cap. Many moved from it and not did they

:50:59. > :51:05.move away they found it got people into further above si and also would

:51:06. > :51:13.it not the case that we would find ourselves in a similaration similar

:51:14. > :51:16.situation with a policy that will lead to failure, buzz it doesn't

:51:17. > :51:27.make any difference to what it is trying to achieve in the first

:51:28. > :51:33.place. I think a point I would wish to re-emphasise is that equality

:51:34. > :51:37.impact assessment is critical to the development of complex policy. All

:51:38. > :51:41.policy. But particularly complex policy such as social security. I

:51:42. > :51:44.think some of the profound weaknesses in the thinking

:51:45. > :51:48.underpinning the two child limit would have been brought to the

:51:49. > :51:53.surface if that process had been undertaken with any kind of

:51:54. > :51:59.adequacy. So I think that's vitally important. To get policy right at

:52:00. > :52:03.the start, rather than to be seeking to either mitigate it or to

:52:04. > :52:09.challenge it in ways that become quite difficult. I think there is

:52:10. > :52:15.virtue to legal certainty I wouldn't want to rule that kind of approach

:52:16. > :52:23.out for organisations such as mine on every single topic. But certainly

:52:24. > :52:26.collaboration, participatory approaches to developing policy,

:52:27. > :52:31.hearing from women's lived experience would have produce adds

:52:32. > :52:35.dramatically different kind of policy and I would urge the

:52:36. > :52:38.committee to consider all those approaches when looking at the

:52:39. > :52:44.development of the new social security approaches that Scotland

:52:45. > :52:48.will be taking. So that it can avoid some of these mistakes in thinking

:52:49. > :53:00.that colleagues have perhaps had a chance to have. Anyone else? I think

:53:01. > :53:11.as I said, a welcome change is regardless of which ever route they

:53:12. > :53:14.came from. But we have asked the UK Government to reconsider the policy

:53:15. > :53:19.in light of the evidence from ourselves and from other

:53:20. > :53:26.organisations. And I think that would be the most... Straight

:53:27. > :53:33.forward step to changing policy in terms of sort of how it comes about

:53:34. > :53:45.and what tactics people might use. It is not... Sort of necessarily for

:53:46. > :53:54.me to say, all I can say is that we hope that people act on our

:53:55. > :53:57.evidence. Can I come in? You mentioned the fact that on behalf of

:53:58. > :54:03.the people you say in CAB you would prefer this to be scrapped

:54:04. > :54:08.altogether? Yes. Just to make that clear for the record. You have made

:54:09. > :54:18.submissions that it should be scrapped. Yes. That is great thank

:54:19. > :54:22.you. Ruth Maguire. Thank you for being here and for all your evidence

:54:23. > :54:30.and your work. We know that the two child limit applies to child tax and

:54:31. > :54:35.universal credit. But other forms to support income like income support

:54:36. > :54:40.and Jobseeker's Allowance have been amended to prevent an amount being

:54:41. > :54:44.paid for a third child from April. Even housing benefit regulations

:54:45. > :54:51.have been changed to prevent the effect of the policy being offset.

:54:52. > :54:57.Is this something that the panel recognises and what impact do you

:54:58. > :55:06.see from cutting off such vital income streams? I was I was alluding

:55:07. > :55:14.to earlier, it is still I suppose knowing what the impact will be,

:55:15. > :55:21.because it is a picture and may change entitlement to other benefit.

:55:22. > :55:29.In terms of when changes like this tend to happen, sometimes the impact

:55:30. > :55:37.on the ground in citizens advice bureaus is quite subtle. What they

:55:38. > :55:45.tend to find is that an increasing amount of people struggling to pay

:55:46. > :55:54.for essentials and needing support from whatever social security

:55:55. > :56:00.support they can get. Seeing if we, an increased number of people who...

:56:01. > :56:07.Been seek food bank referrals over the past three or four years. So

:56:08. > :56:13.it's something that I think probably will sort of see the impact as it

:56:14. > :56:21.comes in. But might be in the form of people who are struggling and

:56:22. > :56:26.difficult to get... Get... Suitable social security entitlement to cover

:56:27. > :56:35.their sort of all of costs. I want to come in? Sorry this is still

:56:36. > :56:39.evolving in terms of our being able to collect evidence from our members

:56:40. > :56:47.on the impact. But we know that Women's Aid groups are having to try

:56:48. > :56:54.and cobble together destitution funds to help women who can't afford

:56:55. > :56:58.nappies or formula milk. These are because of the cumulative impact of

:56:59. > :57:00.the cuts that women are experiencing and their inability to manage

:57:01. > :57:07.day-to-day living. We will be continuing to do that with our

:57:08. > :57:11.members to be... As this develops, to be gathering evidence from them

:57:12. > :57:18.directly and case studies of their experiences. Emma, did you want to

:57:19. > :57:25.come in? The women's budget group has come to a determination that 86%

:57:26. > :57:30.of all of the cults made in the decade of austerity between 2010 and

:57:31. > :57:34.20 twenty will come from women's purses. That is a staggering figure

:57:35. > :57:39.and repeated in work done in the House of Commons library and other

:57:40. > :57:43.places also. Successive UN committees when they have been

:57:44. > :57:50.looking at the UK's performance again vs its international on

:57:51. > :57:57.national obligations have required the UK to look at the combined

:57:58. > :58:02.impact of all of these different policy changes on disabled people

:58:03. > :58:07.and black and minority ethnic people and women and children and so far

:58:08. > :58:12.those calls have not resulted in any action and I think we would join the

:58:13. > :58:17.Equality and Human Rights Commission which has repeatedly urged the UK

:58:18. > :58:22.Government do that also, because we simply don't know, we can pull

:58:23. > :58:27.together all our evidence and say that these things collectively will

:58:28. > :58:34.be having a detrimental impact we can see from indicators such as food

:58:35. > :58:39.bank use increasing that real people and real communities are being

:58:40. > :58:49.affected by the withdrawal of services and income, but the UK is

:58:50. > :58:55.not looking at the picture painted by the reforms and is instead

:58:56. > :58:59.increasing the severity of those. If we are at a point where women are

:59:00. > :59:07.having to come and be give opinion nappy for their children and mill

:59:08. > :59:12.tock feed -- mill tock feeds them, it -- milk to feed them it sounds

:59:13. > :59:18.cruel. Scottish Women's Aid in your evidence there is a case study which

:59:19. > :59:24.I think sets out starkly the impact, probably more over than that,

:59:25. > :59:29.it's... Reflects how lacking in a grounding of what people's lives are

:59:30. > :59:37.like would that be reflected across the client base that you work with?

:59:38. > :59:47.It is it's a very typical example of the case studies we gather in terms

:59:48. > :59:49.of women only being able to access largely low paid employment,

:59:50. > :59:57.temporary employment, juggling that with childcare and school holidays

:59:58. > :00:02.and other care of elderly parents, and because of women who have

:00:03. > :00:07.experienced domestic abuse, they have been prevented from working

:00:08. > :00:13.outside the home for educational opportunities limited. They're

:00:14. > :00:26.likely to be experiencing more inherent poverty and risk of

:00:27. > :00:34.financial poverty. Anybody else want to come in on that answer?

:00:35. > :00:41.I suppose the court of public opinion will be testing in two

:00:42. > :00:46.weeks' time and people now well past judgment on this policy amongst

:00:47. > :00:49.others and I have to say the geographical exclusion is for the

:00:50. > :00:54.whole of the UK to reject this policy. Can I come to the cost of it

:00:55. > :01:00.because it seems to me that we seem different figures. I think the

:01:01. > :01:06.Minister for social security spoke about a ?12 billion saving at the UK

:01:07. > :01:10.level, we've seen figures of ?1.5 billion saved per annum across the

:01:11. > :01:17.UK and ?85 million saved across Scotland if this policy is applied.

:01:18. > :01:21.Do you get a sense looking at things, do you get a sense of where

:01:22. > :01:24.those savings are going to be reapplied, we apply to help the

:01:25. > :01:32.poorest in society or do you think they will be reapplied for tax cuts

:01:33. > :01:42.to those who are better off? Is there an election going on? Where

:01:43. > :01:48.the UK Government chooses to spend its savings as a matter for the UK

:01:49. > :02:00.Government rather than citizens of Scotland. One thing that is worth

:02:01. > :02:05.pointing out is that, talking about welfare savings, it doesn't

:02:06. > :02:11.necessarily mean that the taxpayer is saved money in the long term,

:02:12. > :02:16.this impacts on the health service, on housing, on crisis support and

:02:17. > :02:22.local authorities where people are struggling to get by, facing

:02:23. > :02:28.constant stress and worry, so it's not necessarily that money would be

:02:29. > :02:34.entirely saved, it would go somewhere else and it's the

:02:35. > :02:42.Sheffield Hallam University report for this committee, they have

:02:43. > :02:48.highlighted that money lost to the economy in local areas, so it's more

:02:49. > :03:02.of a complex piece than merely making a saving that is saved to the

:03:03. > :03:08.public purse. Richard, do you want to come back in again? No, that's

:03:09. > :03:12.fine. As advocacy organisations I thought you may have a view on the

:03:13. > :03:19.distribution of resources in society. I've already asked Rob if

:03:20. > :03:24.the benefit of the committee and the evidence we've heard, would you

:03:25. > :03:32.prefer to seek this legislation scrapped completely? Yes. I will

:03:33. > :03:35.call the meeting to a close just now, thank you very much for your

:03:36. > :03:44.evidence and we will give a few minutes.

:03:45. > :03:51.I just want to welcome today, the written evidence. That was very

:03:52. > :03:59.helpful for the committee. Welcomed John Dickie, director of action

:04:00. > :04:06.group for Scotland and director of policy and practice. I will start

:04:07. > :04:10.off with a basic question picked up from the previous witnesses and one

:04:11. > :04:14.of the issues which they replied to, one of my questions was with regard

:04:15. > :04:20.to the legislation and have it will have a knock-on effect any other

:04:21. > :04:26.benefit, such as school meals or school clothing grants. My question

:04:27. > :04:31.to the witnesses is how will that affect in the role that you play in

:04:32. > :04:35.child poverty, how will that affect children already living in poverty

:04:36. > :04:42.and how can that policy be implemented in that respect, so I

:04:43. > :04:47.open it up to the witnesses. Starting off, initially it's a high

:04:48. > :04:53.level. Our analysis looked at effectively evaluating the policy on

:04:54. > :05:00.its own terms. We have talked a lot just using numbers to look if it is

:05:01. > :05:04.making its objectives. One is changing behaviour on the other a

:05:05. > :05:10.saving money. In terms of responding to that particular question, what

:05:11. > :05:14.impact will it have specifically it affects a quarter of a million

:05:15. > :05:18.people who are already in poverty today, pushing deeper into poverty,

:05:19. > :05:24.just over a quarter of a million who are ever so slightly, a quarter of a

:05:25. > :05:34.million children who are currently above the poverty line who will live

:05:35. > :05:38.below from a UK perspective. 600,000 children who are above the poverty

:05:39. > :05:42.line on will remain above the poverty line and will be worse off.

:05:43. > :05:45.That's looking at the children who are born and what was you that

:05:46. > :05:49.support but also their siblings as well because this is by default

:05:50. > :05:55.affects larger families. The knock-on impact on other benefits

:05:56. > :06:00.does exist. It is relative to other reforms that are happening at the

:06:01. > :06:07.same time, relatively slight. The complexity of putting all of these

:06:08. > :06:11.and looking at this, the combined impact of these welfare reforms

:06:12. > :06:20.together is what we have to do. That is what affects people, it's what

:06:21. > :06:24.affects the families. They're interest in the combined impact of

:06:25. > :06:32.this, the benefit camp that are coming in. Their ability to meet

:06:33. > :06:37.spending commitments. The focus has been on the overall impact of this

:06:38. > :06:41.particular policy on levels of child poverty. I can go into that in a bit

:06:42. > :06:48.more depth in terms of the knock-on effects. Less work in terms of

:06:49. > :06:51.working out for the risks are for the devolved benefits like school

:06:52. > :06:56.clothing grants or free school meals. We have had commitment from

:06:57. > :06:59.Scottish Government that it won't impact on council tax reduction. We

:07:00. > :07:04.have to make sure there are similar arrangements in place that just

:07:05. > :07:09.because you have a third child in the family and losing entitlement to

:07:10. > :07:16.UK child tax credits or universal credit that it is not having an

:07:17. > :07:23.impact on benefits. That has to be checked through. I wanted to explore

:07:24. > :07:27.a bit, we will open that up to questions. I remember the stigma

:07:28. > :07:31.attached to children getting free school meals, you had a different

:07:32. > :07:38.ticket from everyone else. You would need to fill in a form. Would it

:07:39. > :07:41.possibly... Talking about Scotland, as a UK wide policy, is that the

:07:42. > :07:45.kind of form it could possibly take their people would be going back to

:07:46. > :07:51.having a stigma for school grants or free school meals? I need to go back

:07:52. > :07:57.and look at that and more depth to see how we can ensure that in

:07:58. > :08:02.Scotland lots of entitlement for a third and subsequent children

:08:03. > :08:05.doesn't be to any administrative barriers to devolved benefits like

:08:06. > :08:11.free school meals or school clothing grants. There is good work going on

:08:12. > :08:17.in terms of removing the need for application and in Glasgow, they are

:08:18. > :08:19.looking at optimising the entitlement to school clothing

:08:20. > :08:23.grants and to free school meals using data that they already have

:08:24. > :08:28.about people's financial support and making sure that happens in a way

:08:29. > :08:32.that doesn't just feed through the loss of universal credit and child

:08:33. > :08:35.tax credits and that impact on free school meal entitlement. It's

:08:36. > :08:42.something we need to look at. Would you have any thoughts on that. It is

:08:43. > :08:46.a UK wide legislation, do you have any thoughts on that, would that be

:08:47. > :08:49.the effect it might have on people? Rather than the stigma, if you think

:08:50. > :08:52.about some of the specific interactions that this policy will

:08:53. > :08:56.have, which was your first question on the knock-on implications for

:08:57. > :09:02.other benefits. A couple come to mind. The first one is that the

:09:03. > :09:05.commitment to ensuring council tax support isn't affected by this

:09:06. > :09:12.reform is relatively straightforward in the context of the current method

:09:13. > :09:16.of assessing council tax support. Universal credit does get that and

:09:17. > :09:21.it may get more complex. We have modelled council tax in 40 councils

:09:22. > :09:26.and many have been implement it and there are some interesting drivers

:09:27. > :09:30.are no universal credit context, particularly with a high

:09:31. > :09:34.administrative costs of administering council tax support

:09:35. > :09:39.and will make it more difficult to meet it with universal credit. A

:09:40. > :09:42.couple of other potential short-term knock-on consequences but in the

:09:43. > :09:47.longer term impacts on the take-up of other benefits is relevant as

:09:48. > :09:52.well. In some respects it could actually increase the demand and

:09:53. > :10:00.requirement for some types of later down the line anti-poverty measures.

:10:01. > :10:03.Eligibility for free school meals. You mention school clothing grants

:10:04. > :10:10.and a couple of others, the pupil premium policy. . Depending on what

:10:11. > :10:15.the future eligibility criteria for that policy are, if children are

:10:16. > :10:18.worse off effectively at the outset, that it was some of these other

:10:19. > :10:22.later down the line costs for government are likely to increase.

:10:23. > :10:33.Bruce, you wanted to come in. In written evidence, it was from

:10:34. > :10:37.child poverty action group, you mention that the coalition

:10:38. > :10:45.government estimated in 2010 that as many as 350,000 children and 500,000

:10:46. > :10:50.working adults can be moved off the property by these changes, referring

:10:51. > :10:54.to universal creditinto production. By virtue of the changes to

:10:55. > :10:57.entitlement and increased take-up of benefits. This clearly hasn't been

:10:58. > :11:04.the case, could you elaborate on the difference that you see now between

:11:05. > :11:09.now and the 2010 estimate and what is actually happening. How much was

:11:10. > :11:15.the UK Government wrong in its estimations? The original modelling

:11:16. > :11:21.was that universal credit itself would reduce child poverty by

:11:22. > :11:27.350,000 across the UK by 2020. That was against the backdrop of a whole

:11:28. > :11:31.series of other cuts to financial supported families, cuts to child

:11:32. > :11:36.benefit, cuts to other financial support. In itself, on paper the

:11:37. > :11:43.model was that it would reduce child poverty. We have looked in terms of

:11:44. > :11:47.what the actual impact on child poverty would be in terms of

:11:48. > :11:53.universal credit and it's looking like it will be a million more

:11:54. > :11:57.children in poverty by 2020. So clearly a massive difference in

:11:58. > :12:00.terms of the impact of universal credit. Not just about the two child

:12:01. > :12:06.limit, about the wider cuts that have been made to universal credit.

:12:07. > :12:11.Changes to work allowances within universal credit, changes to the

:12:12. > :12:17.taper rate with universal credit as people increase their earnings. The

:12:18. > :12:26.whole series of cuts to the value of universal credit that is reducing

:12:27. > :12:30.its poverty fighting potential. Our key focus at the moment is to try to

:12:31. > :12:35.fix that and this has been ruled out by the UK Government but it can be

:12:36. > :12:39.fixed, you can invest in to ensure it has more of that poverty fighting

:12:40. > :12:45.potential that it had when it was originally designed. We will have

:12:46. > :12:49.more to say on how the original design work and how it would impact

:12:50. > :12:57.on levels of child poverty but what was in principle have had a poverty

:12:58. > :13:04.reducing impact in terms of the modelling that we've done, it's

:13:05. > :13:09.going to actually increase levels of poverty and the old BR has also

:13:10. > :13:14.acknowledged that overall the universal credit regime will be

:13:15. > :13:20.overall less generous than the system it's replacing. For those

:13:21. > :13:26.that those unaware, I was part of the team that developed universal

:13:27. > :13:29.credit as a policy concept. Initially, I think, and perhaps

:13:30. > :13:33.still, the complex behind simplifying the benefits system and

:13:34. > :13:40.that people are Ben more beneficial to be in work. It's sensible to

:13:41. > :13:43.think is universal credit is in two ways, the of changing the structure

:13:44. > :13:47.of the system and how that works and the second one is how much money we

:13:48. > :13:50.spend on the system both in terms of the Oettl product support and the

:13:51. > :13:56.levels of inner work support and toady taper off. From my

:13:57. > :14:00.perspective, I think reducing the levels of in work support to be less

:14:01. > :14:04.generous than they are under the current benefit system is a step

:14:05. > :14:13.backwards for a government that implemented universal credit of

:14:14. > :14:16.making work pay. Fiscal constraints aside, it's still a trade-off choice

:14:17. > :14:23.between other spending decisions elsewhere. I would also say that

:14:24. > :14:26.from my perspective, the policy concept behind universal credit of

:14:27. > :14:31.simplifying the benefit system and ensuring that people can clearly and

:14:32. > :14:33.conceptually see that they would always be better off in work and

:14:34. > :14:44.working more still stands. We do a lot of work on looking at

:14:45. > :14:53.the practical elements of implementing universal credit two

:14:54. > :14:59.and we see part of our role as taking the practical bodies and

:15:00. > :15:07.feeding them back into the policy process. Where there is a policy

:15:08. > :15:18.issue trying to iron those out. Do you want to come back? Thank you. I

:15:19. > :15:24.think I'm concerned by the evidence that we are hearing that once

:15:25. > :15:28.universal credit is rolled out the two child limit will result in

:15:29. > :15:33.another two thousand children being pushed into poverty. That is gravely

:15:34. > :15:39.concerning and the child poverty action group you say that 51,000

:15:40. > :15:43.families with Scotland with more than two children claimed tax

:15:44. > :15:48.credits and you make the point that 39% of children and families with

:15:49. > :15:53.more than three children live in poverty, compared to 26% with two

:15:54. > :16:01.children. What I feel and I think policy in practice you touch on this

:16:02. > :16:08.we are seeing a corruption of our needs-based system and that we are

:16:09. > :16:11.moving from the needs-based system on which the British welfare system

:16:12. > :16:16.was set up. We are saying, do you know what, that is just tough,

:16:17. > :16:27.because you don't meet these criteria, do you agree with that? Is

:16:28. > :16:34.there anything we can do to stop the rot that is setting in It is not

:16:35. > :16:40.just corrupting, it is breaking the link, the two child limit breaks the

:16:41. > :16:45.link between the the limit of support and the support available.

:16:46. > :16:55.That is one of the most invidious aspects of this policy, is that

:16:56. > :17:00.break. What concerns us is the mismatch between the apparent policy

:17:01. > :17:05.objective of the two child limit and the actual practicality of how it

:17:06. > :17:11.plays out. So the explanation given us to it fair introduce fairness

:17:12. > :17:15.between working families and those who aren't work and it will make

:17:16. > :17:20.parent ts think about whether they can aforked to bring up a child --

:17:21. > :17:28.whether they can afford to bring up a child. And the bulk of the people

:17:29. > :17:32.impacted, two thirds of the families who will be impacted are families

:17:33. > :17:38.who are working and two thirds are families who, where there are only

:17:39. > :17:42.three children, we are not talking about huge families. Two thirds of

:17:43. > :17:47.families affected being families who are in work. So it is hard to see

:17:48. > :17:52.how that's creating fairness between working and non-working families if

:17:53. > :17:57.any such unfairness exists at the moment and we would question that.

:17:58. > :18:02.The other assumption that somehow families can plan on the basis of

:18:03. > :18:07.financial security for the 18 years that it takes to bring up a child.

:18:08. > :18:10.Very few if any families are in that position and no family that I'm

:18:11. > :18:17.aware of can guarantee it is not going to be impacted by

:18:18. > :18:20.unemployment, by redundancy, by ill health or by widowhood or

:18:21. > :18:27.separation. These are all things that can happen over the course

:18:28. > :18:30.after child growing up and have a significant impact on family

:18:31. > :18:38.incomes. I'm not sure how families are meant to plan. It is not

:18:39. > :18:41.possible to plan for that and to have a social security system that

:18:42. > :18:49.fails to provide support on the basis of need when one of those...

:18:50. > :18:56.Source of insecurity hit a family, it seems to be a real... An

:18:57. > :18:59.undermining of what we mean by social security or what social

:19:00. > :19:06.security should be able to provide for families across in Scotland and

:19:07. > :19:10.across the UK. I'm sure the session will move on to ways forward, I

:19:11. > :19:16.wanted to answer the question in a way that got us thinking about that.

:19:17. > :19:21.Yes, it is a shift away from the needs-based, some of those

:19:22. > :19:25.needs-based principles, but it is worth thinking about how we assess

:19:26. > :19:30.and think about needs. Say that for two reasons, one the driver of how

:19:31. > :19:37.poverty is measured based on income means if you take money out of

:19:38. > :19:44.system, more people will be in poverty. There is a more

:19:45. > :19:49.sophisticated way of thinking about poverty. So we have done some work

:19:50. > :19:54.for a number of authorities again who to model the expected

:19:55. > :19:59.expenditure of different households based on different size levels,

:20:00. > :20:06.certain authorities have been used that to identify house holds that

:20:07. > :20:10.are coping and those that are in crisis and when you're trying to

:20:11. > :20:13.work with households you often have contact with those in crisis and

:20:14. > :20:17.they are the ones that are more likely to present. It would be

:20:18. > :20:20.interesting to see what level of intervention could happen with

:20:21. > :20:26.households that were, had gone from struggling to being at risk. So

:20:27. > :20:29.there is a potentially a concern and an opportunity to intervene. The way

:20:30. > :20:35.we go about that and the reason I wanted to mention it, with some of

:20:36. > :20:39.the powers that Scotland will have, thinking about new ways of

:20:40. > :20:42.developing a social security system that gets the right kind of support

:20:43. > :20:48.to the right people at the right time is something that is worthwhile

:20:49. > :20:55.putting a lot of energy into and is probably a step away from simple

:20:56. > :21:02.mitigation. Do you believe the cost of the policy will ultimately fall

:21:03. > :21:09.on children affected? I mean just we did a couple of bits of analysis f

:21:10. > :21:13.you look at where -- if you look at where sort of arguments the

:21:14. > :21:16.Governments have made for ring fencing certain aspects of social

:21:17. > :21:20.security, particularly for older people and those of working age, the

:21:21. > :21:23.driver has been older people don't have the ability to change their

:21:24. > :21:28.current circumstances, that is one of the drivers for one of the

:21:29. > :21:32.justifications for protection. I would apply that same argument to

:21:33. > :21:37.the children who are affected by this policy, both the babies born

:21:38. > :21:42.into families and their siblings of how much ability they have to

:21:43. > :21:47.influence that. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything about it.

:21:48. > :21:54.There are if the objective is to save money, you could reduce the,

:21:55. > :22:03.there are other policy alternatives. I think that's where our concerns

:22:04. > :22:08.stem from. You can't you know modelling the impact of the policy

:22:09. > :22:12.without the two-child limit and then with the two-child limit 200,000

:22:13. > :22:18.more children in poverty across the UK. And I home the evidence we have

:22:19. > :22:23.given about what the impact of growing up in poverty and in an

:22:24. > :22:27.income that is so far behind what is the norm in our society and what is

:22:28. > :22:32.needed to provide a decent start that, comes at a cost in terms of

:22:33. > :22:36.evidence we have presented to the develop in terms of education and

:22:37. > :22:41.health and well being, you can't drive children into poverty and

:22:42. > :22:44.increase levels of child poverty without significant impacts on

:22:45. > :22:53.children's well being and costs for all of us in society and as given in

:22:54. > :23:02.previous panels in terms of other public services. Do you want to come

:23:03. > :23:07.in? A question for Devon, you referred to this being a step

:23:08. > :23:11.backward against the background of considerations relating to the idea

:23:12. > :23:18.of being it should be I think pay more to be in work Nan than out of

:23:19. > :23:25.work. I'm not suggesting other considerations are not also

:23:26. > :23:32.important, but I think you mentioned in the written submission this, have

:23:33. > :23:37.you done calculations purely on that financial aspect to demonstrate the

:23:38. > :23:42.value or lack of value of this particular alteration in the tax

:23:43. > :23:46.credit system and is there a tipping point where even from a purely

:23:47. > :23:59.financial point of view you could show that it is worth it or not

:24:00. > :24:06.worth it. We have a minute's silence at 11 o'clock. It was announced

:24:07. > :24:12.earlier. You may start. I will stop. I will kick off with the response it

:24:13. > :24:18.won't take five minutes. But it is a good point. It is worthwhile

:24:19. > :24:22.raising, we have done, the modelling we do is impact assessment that

:24:23. > :24:26.others have mentioned and the Parliament has commissioned. The

:24:27. > :24:33.driver behind policy and practice's approach as well as modelling all

:24:34. > :24:36.the reforms including thing like mitigating measures like increases

:24:37. > :24:43.in the national minimum wage and the personal tax allowance in the

:24:44. > :24:52.context of this and universal credit, is also the ability to

:24:53. > :25:02.effectively do this at the individual house hold level and you

:25:03. > :25:09.look at data sets. Our work has been working with local authorities own

:25:10. > :25:15.data and working with that to track the impact that these policies are

:25:16. > :25:18.having on individual households and because you're tracking individual

:25:19. > :25:22.households, you can see causation between one policy and the next. So

:25:23. > :25:27.we have done this and I think this is relevant to Scotland which is why

:25:28. > :25:36.I bring it up. We have done it in London and pulled together data

:25:37. > :25:39.across 14 years, over two years, that is 450,000 low income

:25:40. > :25:46.households with individual data points each month. Some of the

:25:47. > :25:51.questions, more analysis tends to lead to more questions, but some of

:25:52. > :25:57.the things that's pointed us towards us, so we were asked to look at the

:25:58. > :26:04.cost of Kempry accommodation -- temporary accommodation when

:26:05. > :26:09.affected by the benefit cap and we found 80% of households had been in

:26:10. > :26:16.temporary accomodation for more than 12 months. Those 20% we now have to

:26:17. > :26:22.ask the question of are they affected by the benefit cap because

:26:23. > :26:28.they're in temporary accommodation and the costs are higher. Or that

:26:29. > :26:32.drove them to leanest leave a tenancy and these are questions we

:26:33. > :26:41.can now answer. The other way in which some of the work can happen is

:26:42. > :26:44.in targeting support from reading other submissions, discretionary

:26:45. > :26:49.mitigation is one route forward for families affected by this. There are

:26:50. > :26:55.some serious challenges in terms of cost of administration and in terms

:26:56. > :27:00.of getting support to family that are affected that is a challenge

:27:01. > :27:04.without being able to pin point individual households. This is for

:27:05. > :27:09.policy and practice this is a very powerful and important way forward

:27:10. > :27:12.to think about how we address these broader questions of social

:27:13. > :27:16.security, so the ability to model policy through to 2020 and the crux

:27:17. > :27:22.of question is have we done the modelling? Yes taking into account

:27:23. > :27:31.the reforms together and modelling multiple scenarios so there is a

:27:32. > :27:34.pre-Brexit and post-Brexit scenario, looking at difference in increases

:27:35. > :27:36.in wages and rent levels. I will pause there. I think we are close to

:27:37. > :27:46.11. One last point in the last 20

:27:47. > :27:50.seconds I think the other reason #i9d is relevant to mention is I

:27:51. > :27:53.think data and nfgss has been very power -- information has been

:27:54. > :27:57.powerful in influencing Westminster and when I look at the local

:27:58. > :28:00.authorities success they have had they have come with local

:28:01. > :28:34.authorities that know how to use and wield the power of information.

:28:35. > :28:43.I think we all benefitted from that minute's silence and our private

:28:44. > :28:50.thoughts. Could I continue obviously the discussion? Gordon Lyndhurst did

:28:51. > :28:58.you want to come back in? Briefly. In relation to this specific issue

:28:59. > :29:03.of the child tax credit cap, it may be there has not been the time or

:29:04. > :29:06.opportunity to do these sorts of calculations or broad considerations

:29:07. > :29:11.yet, will you be undertaking these? We have done this for a number of

:29:12. > :29:15.individual local authorities. So for example for Croydon their ability

:29:16. > :29:24.now to pin point households with two children that could be affected. Now

:29:25. > :29:28.exists. The next step is to tie that into information around life, births

:29:29. > :29:33.and other considerations around things like that. That is the way in

:29:34. > :29:38.which this kind of information, the use of this kind of information

:29:39. > :29:44.could be applied, similarly if it around mitigation where a third

:29:45. > :29:48.child was born and notified, notified the relevant authorities,

:29:49. > :29:59.you could then target mitigation to the household.

:30:00. > :30:09.I find what you said very interesting, so I will switch my

:30:10. > :30:13.questions. Of course, there was a point where we didn't have child tax

:30:14. > :30:16.credit, the Labour government introduced it, something I would

:30:17. > :30:19.wish to continue to defend. I believe in it and I believe it has

:30:20. > :30:24.reduced poverty across Britain but the context we live in now, as you

:30:25. > :30:30.previously mentioned, a financial crash where people lost their jobs,

:30:31. > :30:34.more people fell into poverty and Brexit has to be a factor in all of

:30:35. > :30:42.this and more families will be in poverty. It's hard to make

:30:43. > :30:45.assumptions because the object of the policy is to get people to think

:30:46. > :30:51.about planning their families if the state is paying. They may ignore

:30:52. > :30:56.that and the need to do it anyway to have more children even if it is not

:30:57. > :31:00.supported by the state. What you are telling the committee about trying

:31:01. > :31:07.to identify those families who are struggling against those families

:31:08. > :31:10.who are coping is quite important evidence. I recognise what you're

:31:11. > :31:14.seeing is what we've listen to comedy with the role of local

:31:15. > :31:20.authorities, crucial work on tackling poverty, they can only do

:31:21. > :31:25.that if there is an increase in the resources to do that. Is it your

:31:26. > :31:29.view that it should be addressed in terms of government policy. If the

:31:30. > :31:34.government of the day are not going to reverse the policy itself, only

:31:35. > :31:39.supporting two children with some exceptions, are you suggesting that

:31:40. > :31:43.this should be an argument made to the government, the UK Government,

:31:44. > :31:49.that there should be some other way of recognising that the policy might

:31:50. > :31:55.have quite a dramatic effect years down the line and there should be

:31:56. > :32:00.some way of recognising how the policy can be adjusted? We have to

:32:01. > :32:06.think about this policy, that point in two ways. The first, how do we

:32:07. > :32:13.use information and analysis around this is to influence the poverty

:32:14. > :32:19.level and how might we use it, once the strategic policy direction has

:32:20. > :32:23.been determined, to make better off initial choices. Our work with local

:32:24. > :32:27.authorities, local policy and strategy but also local operational

:32:28. > :32:32.decisions. At a broader level, you can ask some quite important

:32:33. > :32:38.questions about this particular policy. For example, is the cause

:32:39. > :32:47.and impact on fertility rates evident? You can easily compare the

:32:48. > :32:55.likelihood... Changes in fertility rates between two different

:32:56. > :32:59.families, somebody who was affected by this change and somebody who

:33:00. > :33:05.wasn't. These questions can I be answered. There are some relevant

:33:06. > :33:09.points made in the first session about the impact assessments and how

:33:10. > :33:15.and detailed that be but fundamentally I think it's a

:33:16. > :33:21.relevant responsibility for everyone concerned about these choices.

:33:22. > :33:27.Equally at an operational level as well, perhaps that's not the place

:33:28. > :33:31.for this committee but I do think, I agree with the point made that the

:33:32. > :33:36.local authorities do a lot of important work on getting the right

:33:37. > :33:38.kind of support to particular the most vulnerable families and the

:33:39. > :33:43.ways in which they use information to show whether or not their

:33:44. > :33:47.interventions are effective or not is very relevant and useful to

:33:48. > :33:53.themselves and their future direction and other local

:33:54. > :33:58.authorities and best practice. I think there's a real role for local

:33:59. > :34:03.authorities in terms of this change to Social Security and this cut but

:34:04. > :34:06.also others in terms of identifying the households affected and doing

:34:07. > :34:11.all they can within their powers to support those families. I'm a bit

:34:12. > :34:15.concerned we are moving away from the fundamental problem here, which

:34:16. > :34:20.is the two child limit. We have a range of evidence from policy and

:34:21. > :34:25.practice, a quarter of a million more children in poverty by the end

:34:26. > :34:32.of the decade, the analysis, 200,000 more children into poverty by the

:34:33. > :34:35.end of the decade. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, 200,000 more

:34:36. > :34:40.children in poverty as direct result of the two child limit. It has to be

:34:41. > :34:43.on repealing the two child limit, the focus and do all we can to

:34:44. > :34:52.ensure the next UK Government does that. I suppose that's a key point

:34:53. > :34:56.and in terms of the other dynamic effects in terms of the suggestions

:34:57. > :35:03.as to why this policy is there, to encourage parents to plan more, to

:35:04. > :35:08.encourage them to have fewer children. The first panel, evidence

:35:09. > :35:13.from the US, very small if any effect on fertility and the number

:35:14. > :35:19.of children low income families are having. UK Government's on impact

:35:20. > :35:22.assessment doesn't attempt to incorporate any such effect, saying

:35:23. > :35:28.they are uncertain. The policies coming from their and you'd think

:35:29. > :35:33.they would justify find the evidence this would have an impact that it's

:35:34. > :35:36.meant to have, there is no evidence presented that it will have the

:35:37. > :35:39.impact that it's supposed to have but we have a whole lot of evidence

:35:40. > :35:45.that it will have an impact on levels of child poverty and somebody

:35:46. > :35:51.earlier suggested the ISS suggests there is some evidence that Fred

:35:52. > :35:55.fertility decisions can be affected by benefit changes and quoting

:35:56. > :36:00.timing effect on the impact of the total number of children, so it is

:36:01. > :36:07.very limited evidence it will have that impact. The other point I would

:36:08. > :36:10.make is that it's encouraging families, those working families,

:36:11. > :36:16.the family is out of work, whoever they are, to have fewer children. Is

:36:17. > :36:18.that the policy intent we want in an ageing population. Are we really

:36:19. > :36:23.saying that working families should be having fewer children? I just

:36:24. > :36:33.want to get back to the fundamentals of this policy and why we have to be

:36:34. > :36:37.focusing on repealing it. Can I just say, it's our job to interrogate all

:36:38. > :36:43.the evidence before us and I'm just interested to hear. At the moment I

:36:44. > :36:48.don't see that the current government seem convinced, the

:36:49. > :36:50.debate we had in Parliament was embarrassing for the current

:36:51. > :36:56.government, but it doesn't seem to have resulted in a policy change, so

:36:57. > :37:00.I'm just interrogating the idea that if we feel and who knows what will

:37:01. > :37:06.happen on June the 8th, we have to come up with something, we have two

:37:07. > :37:10.continue. I do believe we are heading for something much bigger, I

:37:11. > :37:15.do believe there will be on impact of Brexit on the policy and it would

:37:16. > :37:19.be quite useful to get your evidence on that that will be an added

:37:20. > :37:24.dimension. We are only months down the line of the implications of

:37:25. > :37:27.Brexit and I presume that there will be more families in poverty as a

:37:28. > :37:34.result of it. Would that be your view? Certainly the modelling that

:37:35. > :37:40.was done for us factors in the employment rates, the tax and

:37:41. > :37:46.benefit modelling based on what we know about the cost of living and

:37:47. > :37:49.employment rates, so I think there is substantial evidence out there

:37:50. > :37:58.that the cost of living is likely to increase and we are already seeing

:37:59. > :38:00.that happening. If we see the family benefits being frozen and reduced

:38:01. > :38:04.and lots of different ways, clearly that will have an impact in itself

:38:05. > :38:11.in terms of the levels of family poverty. I take the point, it's

:38:12. > :38:19.important we look at what we can do pragmatically as well. I was taking

:38:20. > :38:26.it down slightly geeky path of data driven analysis. The main point

:38:27. > :38:33.around that fundamentally is how you change policy in Westminster and

:38:34. > :38:38.also how you deliver mitigation operationally, they can be heavily

:38:39. > :38:42.influenced by how you build this information. A lot of it sits within

:38:43. > :38:49.the local authorities in Scotland, we have done a lot of work on North

:38:50. > :38:55.Ayrshire and it is no mean feat to pull some of this information

:38:56. > :38:59.together with the power Scotland will have with the Social Security

:39:00. > :39:03.Bill, how you think about how you implement those in the broader

:39:04. > :39:06.scheme of what's happening to the Social Security system, is what well

:39:07. > :39:09.thinking about how you use that information to do that and to

:39:10. > :39:15.achieve your objectives. For me, it's not quite clear to me whether

:39:16. > :39:20.or not to influence Westminster and have this national bill repealed or

:39:21. > :39:24.whether it's to think about how Scotland can mitigate the impact. In

:39:25. > :39:33.either case, how you use the data is slightly different but still

:39:34. > :39:41.relevant. Thank you for your evidence. In the policy and practice

:39:42. > :39:45.paper, you stated that over a million children will be hit by the

:39:46. > :39:50.policy by the end of this Parliament. We will take that in the

:39:51. > :39:56.coming years. 2.1 million families at risk of being affected, should

:39:57. > :39:59.they have another child. As well as the impact on both have on the

:40:00. > :40:04.well-being of the individuals involved and the well-being of our

:40:05. > :40:09.society, do any of the panel members for a see any long-term costs of

:40:10. > :40:13.this two child limit on the economy specifically? Critically given

:40:14. > :40:18.forecasts of hundreds of thousands of more children being pushed into

:40:19. > :40:22.poverty as a result and given that we know the costs of poverty are

:40:23. > :40:26.significant and children who grow up in poverty have lower productivity

:40:27. > :40:36.as adults and have a higher risk of falling into unemployment. Work I

:40:37. > :40:40.have done on outcome based governments looks at the cost of

:40:41. > :40:45.policies, the benefits of policies on the costs of policies in three

:40:46. > :40:49.main ways. Fiscal, economic and social. The analysis we did in that

:40:50. > :40:53.paper looked specifically at the fiscal because within its own terms,

:40:54. > :40:58.does it save money? It was the question we were looking to ask, we

:40:59. > :41:01.identified a number of fiscal costs that would come into effect offset

:41:02. > :41:05.that. What we didn't look up alongside it, which is why it is a

:41:06. > :41:08.very good question, we didn't model the economic and social

:41:09. > :41:15.implications. I think it's relatively clear to me through

:41:16. > :41:19.common-sense that families, children moving into poverty, the children

:41:20. > :41:23.that are already in poverty and the family is already struggling with

:41:24. > :41:27.meeting their obligations around rent and other things, that will

:41:28. > :41:30.have long consequences for other services but on the well-being of

:41:31. > :41:34.children and those families and it's very difficult to say exactly what

:41:35. > :41:38.that will be. But net it's is unlikely to be very positive. It is

:41:39. > :41:42.likely to have a negative impact on their ability to pay attention in

:41:43. > :41:48.school, the evidence points towards all of that. From an economic

:41:49. > :41:52.perspective, if they're not doing as well in school, there are concerns

:41:53. > :41:55.and this policy will likely have long-term fiscal and social

:41:56. > :42:02.implications well into the future and it's a nod towards not fully

:42:03. > :42:05.costed but quite concerning scenarios as to what happens to the

:42:06. > :42:10.children growing up in those families. At the same time, there

:42:11. > :42:19.was a point earlier to say that net spending on social security, the IFS

:42:20. > :42:27.did this, it is still higher than it was before the introduction of tax

:42:28. > :42:35.credits. I think there's a driver here from the current government and

:42:36. > :42:38.previous government to say he is with the benefit system is too

:42:39. > :42:43.generous and it on making calls as to who and who should not get the

:42:44. > :42:46.support. I think they are valid questions for politicians, whether

:42:47. > :42:50.or not they are being done in the right we can only really be answered

:42:51. > :42:54.against the policy's on objectives, which is why we have looked at this

:42:55. > :42:58.policy in the way we have. If you try to influence Westminster to see

:42:59. > :43:01.you wanted to achieve, the only other point while sub at the

:43:02. > :43:07.microphone is to say that, in the context of behaviour change, as well

:43:08. > :43:10.as the evidence that said Will it or will is not affect policy, it's

:43:11. > :43:14.important not to forget how much effort has gone into making people

:43:15. > :43:20.aware of what has gone into this policy to influence their behaviour.

:43:21. > :43:27.A lot of what has gone into this -- a lot of work has gone into this, so

:43:28. > :43:30.this work is entirely possible. I don't think, if you think about nine

:43:31. > :43:37.months before this policy introduced how many families were aware of it,

:43:38. > :43:42.next to none and if that's a policy objective, how much effort did you

:43:43. > :43:48.put towards achieving it is valid question. These are the kinds of

:43:49. > :43:53.questions that can be powerful. Do you want to reply to that? By giving

:43:54. > :43:57.you an extra five minutes. In terms of the cost is policy we don't have

:43:58. > :44:03.anything specific on what the costs of the specific policy are. We know

:44:04. > :44:07.that the overall loss to Scottish households of cuts to the value of

:44:08. > :44:17.Social Security post 2015 cats is over ?1 billion, that's money that

:44:18. > :44:21.family's pockets and communities across Scotland. That's money not

:44:22. > :44:25.being spent on local businesses and local shops. There is a knock-on

:44:26. > :44:29.impact, not just for the families themselves but for the economy. In

:44:30. > :44:34.terms of the cost to child poverty, work done their modelling the actual

:44:35. > :44:39.costs of child poverty, ?29 billion per year in the UK, the cost of both

:44:40. > :44:43.picking up the pieces in terms of the additional pressures on

:44:44. > :44:47.education, social services, health and the rest of it as well as the

:44:48. > :44:52.lost income as a result of having a generation of children who are less

:44:53. > :44:57.likely to be in work and less likely to be earning decent wages. So there

:44:58. > :44:58.are big costs to tolerate a situation of pushing for even more

:44:59. > :45:11.children into poverty. Adam Tompkins. Given what you said

:45:12. > :45:15.about the modelling that has been done about the number of children

:45:16. > :45:19.pushed into poverty as a result of this, I understand the force of the

:45:20. > :45:23.argument about trying to tackle this at source and it is UK and not

:45:24. > :45:28.Scottish policy, we have a child poverty bill in front of us in this

:45:29. > :45:34.Parliament, this committee's reported on it already, and will

:45:35. > :45:39.deliberate on it next week in the chamber, is there anything specific

:45:40. > :45:45.in the child poverty bill that we should be thinking about

:45:46. > :45:51.strengthening or changing or adding to the bill, with this particular

:45:52. > :45:55.policy in mind? You got that in at the end. There is nothing to do with

:45:56. > :46:00.what we are talking about. I think what you're trying to say, you

:46:01. > :46:07.managed to get... Three words I think. What you're saying to Mr

:46:08. > :46:11.Dicky is is there anything from this child poverty, this two child clause

:46:12. > :46:14.which would be affecting the child poverty bill, is that correct? I

:46:15. > :46:20.think the way I expressed the question was clear than the way you

:46:21. > :46:24.did. We may argue that point. I think Mr Dicky know what is I'm

:46:25. > :46:31.saying. John do you want to come back on that? It is the extension of

:46:32. > :46:38.the mitigation question. The figures thing, again I would say the policy

:46:39. > :46:43.affects children across the UK. Our purpose is to end child poverty

:46:44. > :46:46.across the UK. This policy is unacceptable whether you're a family

:46:47. > :46:51.living in Liverpool, Carlisle or Edinburgh and we will continue to

:46:52. > :46:59.focus in terms of our work and picking up on Mr Tompkins points

:47:00. > :47:06.challenging this legally, we believe the policy is unlawful and our legal

:47:07. > :47:10.officer in London is exploring how we bring a judicial review and

:47:11. > :47:14.challenge the policy and working with families to challenge the

:47:15. > :47:21.policy in the courts. We will won't to do that. That is where our focus

:47:22. > :47:27.is at the moment. We given a couple of extra minutes you're said you're

:47:28. > :47:31.challenging it, I take it you would like to scrap the policy. Would you

:47:32. > :47:40.have any thoughts on that particular one? From where I'm sitting, if

:47:41. > :47:44.you're a low paid and you're a woman and got more than two children, if

:47:45. > :47:51.your well off, you're not affected by this. I see anomalies within the

:47:52. > :47:57.policy. I don't want the put you on the spot. An interesting point we

:47:58. > :48:04.haven't touched on is the idea is the policy is likely to be popular

:48:05. > :48:10.with the electorate. Suggests there is something in it that people like

:48:11. > :48:16.and that is worth investigating. For me, taking the academic response is

:48:17. > :48:20.to look at whether or not the policy meeting the objectives in its own

:48:21. > :48:26.terms, I think it probably isn't and there is case to ask the Government

:48:27. > :48:33.to reassess. Very diplomatically put. I will bring this meeting to an

:48:34. > :49:08.end and we will move into private session. Thank you very much.

:49:09. > :49:20.A Huppe hundred years ago when women were battling for the vote this

:49:21. > :49:25.place was on the front line. Suffragettes has been fighting to

:49:26. > :49:29.win the vote. One group decided to take direct action - the women's

:49:30. > :49:31.social and political