T O P

Greens urged SNP to fix two-child benefit cap, not just complain

Greens urged SNP to fix two-child benefit cap, not just complain

ApplicationCreepy987

This is one Tory policy I don't have a huge issue with though I would have done it after a third birth not second. I do understand the rape issue but that should not be a roadblock. If people want large families they should not expect the state to monetarily support them. (Awaits flaming)


Tgtalex

Not a flaming but it’s a joke piece of legislation in some ways. My wife had twins and only one of them qualifies for CB. No real thought went into circumstances and it was just rushed through to pander to the people who believe there’s a whole chunk of society who pop out babies for benefits.


Dadavester

That is incorrect. You should get bith Child Benefit and the Child element of UC for both. If you have been told you do not you need to question it. With Child benefit the first twin (assuming no previois children) gets the full amount and the second twin gets the secondary amount, as you would with 2 kids.


Tgtalex

We don’t qualify for Tax credits or UC and we did question it. The youngest of the twins doesn’t qualify as he is a third child.


Dadavester

I would 100% get on to some about that. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/universal-credit-and-families-with-more-than-2-children-information-for-claimants


ApplicationCreepy987

That is wrong. Should be birth related, not numbers. If you have three sets of tripleyd such as life for the government.


Dufcdude

They don’t want a solution, they want to complain about bad old England


-Murton-

This is true, but to be honest the thing I find more interesting here is that the Greens are challenging the "we need powers" argument by pointing out that the required powers already exist but aren't being used. It's something I'd expect an opposition party to say, not a coalition partner. Good on them I say.


11gb

I think people might be surprised at how, for lack of a better word, "punchy" the Scottish Greens are. If they do end up entering government, I don't think they are going to be the pushovers some might think they are. That's most likely why they don't want a formal coalition as neither the Greens or the SNP are ones to mince their words.


mojojo42

> This is true, but to be honest the thing I find more interesting here is that the Greens are challenging the "we need powers" argument by pointing out that the required powers already exist but aren't being used. The Scottish Government does not have the power to change the two-child limit. The powers that "aren't being used" is the power to divert some other part of the Scottish Government's budget to compensate for the two-child limit, not to remove that limit.


bonew23

So exactly the same thing then. Either you spend x million to offset the Central Gov's policy, or if you had the power to remove that policy yourself your government would still be x million worse off because their benefits spending would increase by that amount. Unless you want Central Gov to pay for that extra spending by giving the Scottish Gov extra money I'm not sure what you expect to be different...


StonedPhysicist

Just a point of order - we aren't and won't be a coalition partner. Even if there's a co-operation deal on certain shared policies, we remain an opposition party. Formal coalition isn't on the table and it's not really something the party membership would likely support for exactly that reason.


beIIe-and-sebastian

The Scottish Government already mitigate and pay for several regressive Tory government policies such as paying to off-set the 'bedroom tax' In Scotland. They can't afford to keep having to do this with every Tory benefit cut. They don't have the power to abolish the policy as it's Westminster controlled.


RedditIsShitAs

If they think they're struggling financially now how would they manage after independence?


beIIe-and-sebastian

Because they wouldn't have the same spending priorities. They wouldn't for example be having to contribute their share to nuclear ballistic missiles, or aircraft carriers, or HS2 for example, which they have no choice or control over. There wouldn't be a 'bedroom tax' to pay either, as it wouldn't be a policy forced on them, so they wouldn't have to mitigate it since it wouldn't exist.


-Murton-

They would however have to buy their own radar systems, patrol boats, planes, helicopters, infantry, tanks, jeeps and intelligence services etc. Salmonds idiotic idea that Scotland's (unspecified) defence costs were fully covered because of the "share" of total UK defence costs they contributed towards as if economy of scale didn't exist was utter fantasy.


RosemaryFocaccia

People in Scotland already pay for a slice of the UK's defence budget. Post independence we would pay for just our own, and it would be much more modest than what the UK has. As for assets, that would be up for negotiation, but I can't imagine we would need any more than half-a-dozen offshore patrol vessels (e.g. River Class), and the same number of remote radar heads (that already exist (edit: actually, there are only 3)). We could make Lossiemouth available for other Nato members to use. It's not like the people of Scotland have any fantasies about projecting power in the South China sea or taking over Afghanistan.


bonew23

> There wouldn't be a 'bedroom tax' to pay either, as it wouldn't be a policy forced on them, so they wouldn't have to mitigate it since it wouldn't exist. That makes no sense. If you get rid of the "bedroom tax" it means increased benefits spending, because then you are paying the full rate of benefit to social housing tenants that are "under-occupying". Or if your government are already paying out the full rate to offset it, it means the same benefits spending as before. It doesn't just give you free money purely by getting rid of the policy..


GlimmervoidG

SNP wants to join NATO. That means spending the same ~2% GDP on defence. They could chose different things but the target will remain the same. Likewise, electric highspeed rail is vital for a country to meet climate goals. Consider the current French proposal to ban short haul flights where there is rail under 2hs. How do you do that without developing interconnecting rail infrastructure?


ZombieHoppingTime

I'm surprised that the SG can afford to do anything with all the regressive, poverty creating Conservative policies they have to mitigate.


libtin

"THE Scottish Greens have urged the SNP to use Holyrood’s devolved powers to offset the impact of the two-child benefit limit instead of simply complaining about it. The call came as the latest annual figures showed a continued rise in the number of families affected by the controversial Tory policy, including its “rape clause”. With the UK Supreme Court last week ruling the policy is legal, the SNP urged the UK Government to scrap it and said it was another reason for independence. However the Greens, who are in talks about joint government with the SNP, demanded more than rhetoric, and said the Scottish Government should “step in” and mitigate the cut. Green MSP Maggie Champan said: “In Scotland, we should do whatever we can to mitigate these inhuman policies using devolved powers, as we already do with the Bedroom Tax. “The wellbeing of tens of thousands of our poorest children is at stake.” READ MORE: Tory two-child benefit limit that includes 'rape clause' is ruled legal The two-child rule, which came into force in April 2017, restricts Child Tax Credit and Universal Credit to the first two children in a family, with a few exceptions, including rape and multiple births. The limit can result in a loss of up to £2,845 for every third and subsequent child. The measure attracted huge criticism over the so-called “rape clause”, which forced women to reveal pregnancies arising from non-consexual sex to qualify for benefit. Across the UK, around 836,000 households with three or more children claimed either Universal Credit (361,000) or Child Tax Credit (475,000) in the year to April. Of thse, around 317,500 were affected as a result of the two-child limit, with 308,520 losing benefit and 14,000 managing to claim an exemption, including 1,330 because of rape. The number affected was up 58,220, or 23%, across the UK from the previous year. The number claiming an exemption from the cap on the grounds of non-consensual sex UK-wide was up 430, almost 50 per cent, on 2019/20. READ MORE: Tom Gordon - Police probe into SNP will grind Sturgeon down In Scotland, the total number of household affected by the two-child limit was 17,830, up 25% from 14,250 the previous year. The number of households claiming an exemption was 990, up 25% from 790 in 2019/20. Of these, the number of households in Scotland claiming an exemption from the cap on the grounds of non-consensual sex was up 43%, from 70 to 100 last year. Glasgow Central SNP MP Alison Thewliss, who first highlighted the rape clause, said over half those affected by the two-child limit were in work. She said: “Not only is the two-child limit and associated rape clause deeply cruel and pernicious, it is fundamentally a failed policy that any government with an ounce of compassion would have already sought to abolish. “These figures show that the majority of affected households have at least one adult in work – shattering the Tories’ dubious claim their policy is about fairness to those in employment. “My heart goes out to the 1330 women who have had to disclose horrific details under the rape clause. “In the face of overwhelming evidence about the damage that the two-child limit is inflicting on an ever-increasing number of women and children, it is hugely troubling that UK government Ministers remain so obstinately wedded to it. “At a time where the SNP Scottish Government is putting money into people’s pockets with progressive policies like the Scottish Child Payment, the Tories are taking it away again with callous policies like the two child cap. “It is clear that we can only protect families in Scotland with the full powers of independence. “I urge them to reconsider, and to scrap it once and for all. I will continue to be part of the fight to oppose it at every opportunity”. READ MORE: Two-child tax credit limit - Take the argument to Holyrood, not the Supreme Court, by Adam Tomkins Ms Chapman, the Greens’ social security spokesperson, also callled on the UK Government to end the policy, but also reminded the Scottish Government that it was within its power to do something about it. She said: “With around 18,000 Scots families being denied money their children have been assessed as requiring, today’s figures show just how far the UK Government has distorted our social security system. “Taking almost £3,000 per child from some of our poorest families seriously undermines Scotland’s efforts to reduce child poverty, whilst asking people to fill in a form to signify their child was conceived as a result of rape is simply inhumane. “The UK Government must end these cruel policies now. But, if, or more likely, when – because we know their punitive approach to social security – they refuse, the Scottish Government can and should step in. In Scotland, we should do whatever we can to mitigate these inhuman policies using devolved powers, as we already do with the Bedroom Tax. “The wellbeing of tens of thousands of our poorest children is at stake.”"