No cheap tabloid images of sad wee weans here.

And why is a Fraser of Allander economist so grudging? – “So it’s POSSIBLE the rate of child poverty would have been higher in the absence of the Scottish Child Payment”. Only just “possible” that £26.70 per week for each and every child in poorer families reduces poverty – really?

By stewartb

There is yet another example of strange editorial decisions taken by those that run the BBC News website.

An article appeared (at c. 1 am on July 28) on the website entitled: ‘Tale of two nations: Meeting families with very different lives under two-child benefit cap’. (See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c87r2enn88loIt ) It was written by a ‘social affairs correspondent’. The first ‘strange’ – rare – thing is that it makes a direct comparison between outcomes and impact of social policy in England and Scotland. The second ‘strange’ – even rarer – thing is that the comparison makes is favourable to Scotland and the Scottish Government!

Here are some extracts for information and interest. The article opens with this: ‘Thea and Kirsty both have three children, but contrasting policies on benefits in England and Scotland mean their lives are very different. After a Commons row about scrapping the two-child benefit cap, we meet the families affected.’

Later on we read: ‘… official government data shows it (the two-child benefit cap) has increased child poverty among larger families, from 41% in 2016/17 to 46% in the latest figures.

‘The two-child policy affects 440,000 households, with 1.6m children between them. It affects families across the UK, but the impact of the policy has been somewhat reduced in Scotland due to the Scottish Child Payment.

‘Introduced by the Scottish government in 2021, it has since been extended and the value of the payment increased – it is now worth £26.70 a week and is payable for each child under 16 living in a low income household. It’s currently received by 330,000 children. “It alleviates some of the pressure that you have from month to month,” says Kirsty Murray, a mother of three from Cumbernauld.’

The BBC adds: ’She’s fully aware that she’s more fortunate than similar parents in England. “Is that fair? No. If the governments worked together and said, ‘Okay, what works in Scotland?’ Why can’t something similar be done in England.”

Candidly, I’m not sure why Kirsty thinks the two governments need to ‘work together’ for the Labour government in Westminster to fix this! It’s in Westminster’s and only in Westminster’s power to repeal this reserved benefits policy.

I came across the article way down the BBC News website’s main UK page under the sub-heading ‘Features’. Notwithstanding the headline reference to ‘two nations’, it doesn’t appear in either the England or Scotland sections of the website as far as I can determine, not even under ‘features’. It is not on the UK Politics page despite the article’s reference to the political issue that is involved. It is not in the website’s UK Families and Education section, despite the clear relevance to families. Strange?

One wonders why the article was published in the first place if the BBC is intent of hiding it from its website readers interested in reading about England, Scotland, politics and/or family matters!

Another institution’s view

The article closes with a very grudging – that’s being generous – statement from a spokesperson for another ‘institution, the Fraser of Allander Institute at the University of Strathclyde.

We’re told this: “We know that inflation was very high for a few years and so costs were rising and households were facing a lot of pressure on their incomes,” says Hannah Randolph, an economist at Strathclyde University’s Fraser of Allander Institute. “So it’s POSSIBLE the rate of child poverty would have been higher in the absence of the Scottish Child Payment.”’ (my emphasis) The rate of child poverty might POSSIBLY have been higher if low income families had not had £26.70 per week for each and every one of their children – just POSSIBLY?  The economist should consider the direct, practical – and obvious – human benefit that MUST be accruing to low income families because of the Scottish Child Payment before commenting and not just statistical definitions.

And if the benefit for low income families is regarded as so uncertain by the Fraser of Allander Institute, perhaps it should quickly share this knowledge more widely. The BBC article reports: ’The Children’s Commissioner for Wales has called for the Welsh government to copy the Scottish Child Payment but there has been no similar suggestion from the new Labour government.’ 

And the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) seems to agree with the Children’s Commissioner for Wales. On 14 November 2022, Chris Birt, Associate Director for Scotland at the JRF said:“ The full rollout of the Scottish Child Payment is a watershed moment for tackling poverty in Scotland, and the rest of the UK should take notice. At £1,300 per child, per year it will be a welcome boost to family budgets that are stretched to breaking point already. (See https://www.jrf.org.uk/news/scottish-child-payment-extension-a-watershed-already-showing-that-poverty-can-be-tackled-with )

In the FT on 2 October, 2023 there was this headline: ‘How a £25 payment is turning Scotland into a European pioneer in reducing child deprivation.’ In the article we read this:  ‘Supporters of the programme say the money is reducing deprivation among Scottish children to levels below the rest of the UK. They also say the initiative could act as a model for cash disbursements in combating poverty globally.’ (Note, the payment has risen from £25 per week to £26.70.)

Let’s repeat the judgement of the Fraser of Allander Institute’s economist quoted by the BBC: “So it’s POSSIBLE the rate of child poverty would have been higher in the absence of the Scottish Child Payment.” An extra £26.70 per week for every child in eligible low income families might just POSSIBLY make family life a bit better – don’t you think?