Chamber and committees

Did you feel that you were fully involved in the development of the strategy?

Rob Gowans, do you want to comment on your organisation’s involvement in facilitating conversations with the Scottish Government?

Rebecca Hoffman, how involved has your organisation been in facilitating questions and conversations between the Scottish Government and those with lived and living experience of suicide in order to develop the strategy?

I am asking about lived experience.

Thank you for sharing that, John.

I thank Clare Haughey for bringing this incredibly important debate to the chamber.

It is appalling that Westminster has given us seven years of the disgusting two-child policy. The policy, with its abhorrent rape clause, is one of the cruellest welfare policies to emerge from Westminster. It is designed to set families up to fail and to deny children the most basic levels of subsistence. In April 2023, the two-child limit affected 55 per cent of the 772,000 families with three or more children who were claiming universal credit or child tax credit. That is a staggering figure.

In addition to its being an inhumane and cruel policy, it simply has not worked. Its introduction would—it was trailed—provide incentives for people to find more work and would influence their decisions about having children, but it has failed miserably. A three-year study by the London School of Economics and Political Science found that the policy had had no impact at all on employment rates or on work hours.

Interviews that were carried out as part of that study show—perhaps unsurprisingly—that families’ labour market participation is constrained for a number of reasons. One significant reason is to do with access to childcare.

The policy has also had a minimal impact on birth rates. For many families who were interviewed, times had been good when they had an additional child, so the level of benefits was not part of the equation. There are so many people who forget that we are all just one life event away from relying on benefits.

The only thing that the policy has achieved is that it has drastically increased child poverty rates. Nearly half of UK children with two or more siblings now live in poverty, and it is projected that that number will rise sharply in the coming years. Analysis by the Resolution Foundation estimates that, in 2024-25, the lowest-income households will be an average of £1,000 a year worse off as a result of the limit. That is equivalent to 4 per cent of their overall income.

In the past seven years, the only significant shift that we have seen in relation to the policy has been in the Labour Party’s position on it. The party that said in 2019 that it would scrap the policy would now keep the cap and the rape clause. That is just one of several U-turns but, in my opinion, it is the most dangerous one. Should the Labour Party win the next general election, it would keep children in poverty.

As a result of the UK Government’s reckless policy, the Scottish Government spends a large proportion of its budget on protecting the Scottish people. I am proud that we have a Scottish Government and a Scottish social security system that are committed to dignity, fairness and respect, and which will provide for and protect Scottish children—for example, through the game-changing Scottish child payment.

However, we can do only so much. Fundamentally, the UK Government’s benefit cap punishes children and has emotional and material impacts on them. The policy is ruining children’s lives today and their futures tomorrow, so let us end it now by reversing the cap. The suffering has gone on for too long.

In response to Sunak’s recent reaffirmation of the policy, the CPAG’s chief executive said:

“With child poverty at a record high, the prime minister has now clearly decided that making kids poor is his political priority.”

She is spot on, but rather than bringing change that would reverse the trend, the Labour Party has promised to implement the cap and its rape clause “more fairly”. How can it be made more fair? I really do not understand that—I cannot get my head round it, at all.

The problem is not just the Tories; it is also the Labour Party. We know from the Labour Party’s policy that there is no change coming for children in poverty. Real change will be secured only when we have full control over welfare powers and Scotland is independent.

Cheers.

It has been suggested to the committee that, instead of a process of redetermination then appeal, it would be simpler just to go straight to appeal. Any unnecessary appeals could be avoided by lapsing them where necessary. What are your views on that?

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. Over the previous five weeks of evidence sessions, we have heard how confusing it is for people to access social security, and it has been suggested that the same deadline for requesting a redetermination could apply across all benefits. What is your view on that, cabinet secretary?

Moving on to my final question, it has been suggested that the current legislation is too inflexible, because it requires appeals to be made on a specific form. That point was raised by Rights Advice Scotland, I think. What are your views on that?