The omission by a leading poverty charity on BBC Woman’s Hour  – it’s hard to conceive of a discussion of the ‘two-child benefit cap’ in which reference to the Scottish Child Payment could have been more apposite!  Inexplicable or what?

By stewartb – a long read

I listened to a lengthy piece on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour (11 July) on the ‘two-child benefit cap’. This is arguably a ‘flagship’ BBC programme with a UK-wide target audience: it is a valuable platform for advocacy groups. The item was prompted by a new Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)  report on Universal Credit and Child Tax Credit claimants affected by the cap. The BBC item included an interview with a mother living in England on benefits with three children. She became very distressed: at one point she was pleading for as little as an extra £5 per week to help give all her three children a decent breakfast!

The piece also included a contribution from a BBC political correspondent who explained the current political context including (in terms): (i) opposition to the two child cap amongst some Labour MPs; (ii) the new Labour PM previously indicating his dislike of the policy; but (iii) the implication of his other statements that the cap may not be scrapped by a Labour government because the ‘country’ can’t afford to do it.

All of this provided the backdrop to an interview with the Director of Policy, Rights and Advocacy at the charity, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG). The CPAG representative stated that if the two child limit policy was scrapped, the effect would be £3,500 per year additional financial support for eligible families with three children. It was also claimed that the cost to the UK government of scrapping the policy would be £1.7 billion per annum. (Other cost estimates are available but the key issue of affordability or otherwise stands.)

For those that may not know, CPAG describes itself in the following terms: ‘We are the trusted voice on child poverty – Child Poverty Action Group works on behalf of the more than one in four children in the UK growing up in poverty.’ (my emphasis)

At no point during the extended ‘advocacy’ contribution from the CPAG director and at no point in the scene setting provided by the BBC political correspondent was the Scottish Child Payment mentioned. And the BBC interviewer didn’t bring it up.

It was NOT mentioned when the programme participants were discussing the malign impact of the two child cap and the need to remove it, illustrated by a distraught mum pleading for an extra fiver a week!  It was NOT mentioned when pointing to the significant, much needed financial benefit that would accrue to eligible families if the cap were to be scrapped. It was NOT mentioned when the politics were discussed. And it was NOT mentioned in responses to the Labour leadership’s claim that the ‘country’ – supposedly one of the wealthiest in the world – can’t afford to scrap the cap.

Candidly, it would be hard to conceive of a discussion in which reference to the Scottish Government’s (unique in the UK) funding of the Scottish Child Payment could have been more apposite. – in terms of (a) its substantial and direct benefit to struggling families; (b) as an example of a relevant, progressive, tangible political response to a widely acknowledged societal scourge; and (c) as a clear demonstration of affordability.

Yet the senior representative of the ‘trusted voice on child poverty’ chose to remain silent on the Scottish Child Payment! What explains this?

DWP statistics

The UK’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) published (11 July) this: ’Universal Credit and Child Tax Credit claimants: statistics related to the policy to provide support for a maximum of 2 children, April 2024’.

See: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/universal-credit-and-child-tax-credit-claimants-statistics-related-to-the-policy-to-provide-support-for-a-maximum-of-2-children-april-2024

The report notes that since 6 April 2017, families on Universal Credit or Child Tax Credit have been able to claim support only for up to two children (with certain exceptions, most commonly associated with multiple births). Here are some of the statistics contained in the DWP report for context:

• in April 2024 across the UK a total of 440,000 households were NOT receiving the child element or amount for at least one child because of the policy to provide support for a maximum of just two children
• in April 2024 across the UK a total of 1.6 million children were living in a household NOT receiving a child element or amount for at least one child due to being affected by the policy
  • 810,00 are in households with three children; 460,000 with four children and 310,000 with five or more children.

The DWP report provides a partial statistical breakdown by UK nation, including this:

• 400,000 (89%) of households affected by the policy were residents in England in April 2024
• 27,000 (6%) were in Scotland – we learn from Table 7 in the statistical annex that 26,000 households in Scotland are ‘not receiving a child element/amount for at least one child’
• 21,000 (5%) were in Wales.

Scottish Child Payment

The Scottish Government provided information on the Scottish Child Payment (SCP)  in a briefing dated 27 February, 2024 – see https://www.gov.scot/news/families-of-more-than-327-000-young-people-helped-by-scottish-child-payment/

It reported that at end December 2023, the SCP was supporting the families of more than 327,000 children.  Launched in February 2021 it has since risen in value – firstly from £10 per week to £20 per week then, in November 2022, to £25 per week. At the time of the second rise, it extended from being a payment for the families of children under the age of six to all those eligible under 16. It is currently providing £26.70 per child per week.

Further information from Social Security Scotland (29 May 2024) reports: ‘The families of more than 329,000 children under 16 are benefitting from Scottish Child Payment’.  It also reports that over £677 million has paid since the payment launched in 2021. (See https://www.socialsecurity.gov.scot/news-events/news/delivering-the-best-start-in-life)

The 27 February 2024 briefing also notes: ’SCP is intended to provide regular, additional financial support for families already in receipt of qualifying benefits to assist with the costs of caring for a child. There are no limits on the number of eligible children supported by SCP.’ And adds: ‘SCP does not count as earned income in the calculation of any other UK or Scottish Government benefits that the applicant, or any person in their household, currently receive.’

More on the Child Poverty Action Group

The Scottish section of the website of the CPAG has this description: ‘Scottish child payment is £26.70 a week per eligible child, payable every four weeks. There is no limit on how many children within a family can get Scottish child payment, so it will still be paid for a child affected by the two child limit in universal credit or child tax credit.’ (my emphasis)

And it also notes: ’Any amount of qualifying benefit payable will be sufficient to qualify, regardless of other income or earnings, and if benefit has been reduced due to sanctions or deductions.’

Source: https://cpag.org.uk/welfare-rights/benefits-scotland/scottish-benefits/children-young-people/scottish-child-payment

This CPAG Scotland account makes it all the more inexplicable that its spokesperson advocating for the needs of families and children across the UK on Woman’s Hour was silent on the Scottish Government’s actions.

Making comparisons

The CPAG director on Woman’s Hour stated that scrapping the cap would give eligible families with three children an additional £3,500 per year. To the distressed mum pleading for an extra £5 per week that could be life changing. But what does the Scottish Child Payment provide for eligible families with three children?

I am no expert on social security benefits but at face value the published figures indicate an additional £4,165.20 per year for an eligible family with three children (by calculation:  £26.70  per week per child x 52 weeks x 3 children). This is on top of any other family income from employment and on top of any other support from the DWP and Social Security Scotland.

One can only imagine how the distressed mum on Woman’s Hour – and those listeners in Scotland and elsewhere affected by her story – would have reacted to learning of the SNP Scottish Government’s support for poorer families!

End notes

Firstly, the DWP reports that 26,000 households in Scotland are ‘not receiving a child element/amount for at least one child’ at April 2024. Meanwhile, Social Security Scotland reports that the families of more than 329,000 children under 16 are benefitting from the SCP.

(For information, across the UK, the DWP report notes ‘Of the 1.6 million children in households affected by the policy (Figure 11), 52% of children were in households with three children, 29% in households with four children, and 19% are in households with five or more children.’ It is probable that the proportions in Scotland will be broadly similar.) 

So yes, the SCP is mitigating the negative effects the Tory two child benefit cap for families with three or more children, the cap that Labour may well keep because it can’t afford to scrap it in England. But because the SCP is available for ALL children up to the age of 16 in eligible families, it is doing so much more for child poverty reduction than just mitigate the cap!  But how many voters know this beyond the direct beneficiaries? Not Women’s Hour listeners and I’ll warrant many others who rely on the mainstream news media.

Secondly, amongst all the media profile being accorded to the two-child benefit cap now, articles on the topic in the UK and Scotland sections of the BBC News website (11 July) were also devoid of any reference to the SCP.  The focus was predominantly on views of Labour politicians, plus quotes from Lib Dem and England’s Green Party politicians. Scant references to statements made by Scottish Government or SNP politicians on the topic were relatively inconsequential and again had no references to the Scottish Government’s actions to address child poverty, including mitigation of the benefits cap.

And finally,

The nature of the discussion on the Woman’s Hour programme got me ruminating. Political parties in a democracy strive for support at the ballot box by promising to address ‘issues’ they judge to be of societal importance to a majority of voters. Political parties once in government implement policies to address ‘issues’ – to keep a promise; because straightforwardly, they judge it is the right to do so for societal benefit; and/or because it will sustain electoral success.

Intuitively, the ‘doing’ – the implementation – is more difficult that the ‘promising’. Implementation will often involve trade-offs, especially for a government coping with evolving circumstances with strictly limited powers, and a strictly constrained budget. Plus the implementation risks after the fact voter approbium if the outcomes and impact are less than needed or hoped for.

But, again intuitively, in a normal democracy, successful implementation of a policy to address – to make a substantial positive difference to – a societal issue widely regarded as important might be expected to be acknowledged, perhaps even praised by some mainstream media outlets and more so by supposedly non-partisan third sector advocacy bodies.

Poverty – and in particular child poverty – is widely regarded as a societal scourge.  It’s  something that politicians in government should intervene to reduce. It’s something that third sector advocacy bodies argue for and if acted upon, should welcome. – a reasonable person might think! 

However, beneficial, successful actions by the Scottish Government seem to be judged by quite different criteria. They are under- or not reported at all by the mainstream media. And  based on recent evidence, they are not even acknowledged by a leading advocacy body when using its media platform. The Woman’s Hour incident is the ‘problem’ in microcosm: how does a government sustain electoral success under such adverse circumstances?