 Yn ymryd ddechrau, mae'n ddiolchio cyrraed o ffotoe'r 17076 yn y peth, o'r Rhyw Lliad Symuol, o'r bwyllfa'r ymddiadau i'w Cymru, i gael i'w ddweud o'r ddafnogau. DEBATED TO PRASS THE REQUEST TO SPEAK BUTTONS, OR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Now I note that some members who are due to speak in the debate are not present. We have not had an explanation of that, and I will expect one and an apology in due course. I call Shirley-Anne Sonneville to speak to and move the motion around 13 minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the motion in my name. I'm placed to open this debate and to call unequivocally on the UK Government to end the harmful and discriminatory two-child limit and abhorrent rape clause. In 2017 the UK Government introduced the two-child limit, a policy that removed a household's financial support for a third or subsequent child born after the sixth of April 2017. That is unless the mother of the child gains exemption through special circumstances, those being if the child was part of a multiple birth, or for a child born as a result of rape. This summer I was absolutely astonished to hear Keir Starmer confirm that a Labour Government would maintain the Conservatives two-child limit and that there's no reason why the rape clause couldn't, and I quote, operate more fairly. We also heard Anas Sarwar's thoughts on the Scottish Government's focus on creating a strong social security system. When he suggested and I quote again, we have been very much a social policy Parliament rather than an economic policy Parliament. I think that Rose Foye spoke for many of us when she described this as a dismaying lack of vision from any incoming Labour Government. I'm very grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking intervention. I wonder if she could explain to the chamber why she said in April of 2019 through the times that I quote, it's not our policy to alleviate the two-child cap and indeed that she has not advocated the Government mitigating the two-child cap and taking the action that she has called us on. Well, there's the irony, I should not only mitigate against the Tories but I should mitigate against the Labour Party as well. What a sad indictment of where Scottish Labour are now on, but I will come on to the mitigation methods in due course. Presiding Officer, it seems that bereft of any social justice policies in the Labour Party have just simply given up on tackling poverty. This Government has been consistent in its opposition to the two-child limit since its inception in 2017 and has repeatedly called on the UK Government to abolish it. This policy purposely targets vulnerable children and the DWP's own analysis estimates that it is currently impacting on around 1.5 million children in the UK. The House of Commons library tells us that it has affected 80,000 children in Scotland over the past 12 months alone and has cost Scottish families in the region of £341 million in benefits since its inception. The child poverty action group analysis found that removing the two-child limit would pull 250,000 children across the UK out of poverty and a further 850,000 children would be in less deep poverty. Presiding Officer, it's clear that this policy severely impacts children and it is punishing children because their parents are on low incomes. It cannot be right to limit the financial support that is available to children simply because they have two or more siblings. There are calls from other parties for the Scottish Government to mitigate the two-child cap. However, we do not have the powers to remove this policy at source, so while universal credit and child tax credits remain reserved to Westminster, that is the situation that we are in. Even if financial mitigation was possible, the two-child limit and associated rape clause would still be applied by the UK Government. However, the Scottish Government should not have to spend its fixed budget rectifying the UK Government's failures. We are already spending £130 million per year to directly mitigate some of the UK Government's benefit cuts such as bedroom tax and the benefit cap. Over the last six years, we have invested £733 million to directly mitigate UK Government policies. Money that could have been spent on services such as health, education, transport or on further ambitious anti-poverty measures or paid for 2,000 band 5 nurses each single year. That is the price of staying in this union. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary. Her policy today is calling on the UK Government to find £300 million for what the SNP is calling for. Where is she suggesting that UK ministers find that? I can assure Miles Briggs that I am coming to that as well. I have one but of many solutions that I am sure we will find in this debate today. That also does not include our investment in the game-changing Scottish child payment, which we introduced to support families affected by the utter inadequacy of universal credit. By the end of this financial year, we will have spent more than £700 million on the Scottish child payment. Professor Danny Dorling from the University of Oxford recently commended the Scottish child payment as having delivered, and I quote, the biggest fall in child poverty anywhere in Europe for at least 40 years. We have made it clear on our programme for government that we are committed to reducing child poverty. It is therefore galling that the impact of our investment is lessened because of the policies of the UK Government. We estimate that 90,000 fewer children will live in relative and absolute poverty this year because of the Scottish Government's policies, with poverty levels 9 per cent lower than they would have been without Scottish Government benefits. The latest poverty statistics that we published in March show that the Scottish child poverty rates continue to be around 6 per cent lower than the UK average, with the actions of this Government expected to increase that gap still further. It is challenge poverty week. How much easier it would be to challenge poverty in Scotland if it would not work for the punitive policy measures imposed by the UK Government such as the two child limit. It is clear that this Government has a very different priority to the current UK Government, or indeed it would seem any future UK Government. Our priority is supporting children and families out of poverty. Surely everyone in this chamber can agree that the UK Government's approach to child poverty is severely lacking, and this is perfectly captured in their failure to remove the two child limit. Our efforts are further threatened by the fact that the Labour Party now seems to have signed up to that long list of Tory policies. Last year, at Labour Party conference, Anas Sarwar said that our children's generation will not praise us for having child poverty. They will ask what we did to eradicate it. I know what this Scottish Government has done. We are spending £1.4 billion since 2018 on mitigation and the Scottish child payment alone. Really, what exactly can the Labour Party say that they have done when they cannot even commit to scrapping the two child cap? Let us be very clear. Keeping the two child limit and the rate clause is a choice, Labour's choice and the Scottish Conservative choice as well. Labour's spending pledges are a political choice. They claim that the financial mess left by the Tories may impede them from doing the right thing. Let me help both of the parties out on this. Particularly the Labour Party. How about stop spending an extraordinary estimated £205 billion in a trident renewal? How about Labour put barons first, not bombs? That is exactly the type of political choice that would help us to eradicate child poverty if they had the confidence and the courage to do so. Amidst the chaos of Keir Starmer's U-turn, the sheer breathtaking hypocrisy of the Scottish Labour Party has now kicked into action. We first had the ridiculous claims by Scottish Labour leader that scrapping the policy would spook the markets, but then swooped in Jackie Baillie to the rescue who took to the airways to call on this Scottish Government to do exactly what our own party said they wouldn't do, that we should scrap the cap. You couldn't make it up a call from Scottish Labour to mitigate against UK Labour. On yet further evidence of this chaotic and hypocritical position, we have the Labour Party and its amendment today. I have to say that I was a bit dumbfounded when I read it last night. They ask us to welcome their proposals for a new deal for working people, so for the records, I do. The problem is that Keir Starmer doesn't. After an avalanche of U-turns this summer, the Labour leader ripped up the plans. Promises to raise statutory sick pay and extend it to the self-employed, they're gone. A complete ban on zero-hour contracts, that's gone too. Presiding Officer, quite frankly, the promise to raise the minimum wage looks a bit dubious when the Labour leader has diluted it from £15 an hour to, we'll see what happens next week next month. Later this week—oh dear, exactly, Mr O'Kane. I no wonder you're worried. I would be worried too, Mr O'Kane, if I were you. Later this week, Labour members will be attending their party conference. Of what will take place on these hollowed-out policy plans? So what exactly is Anas Sarwar's position? Is he planning to back his party's amendment today but then head to Liverpool to improve a complete U-turn on those plans? We on those benches and in this Scottish Government remain committed to strengthening workers' rights. Now it's very clear that more needs to be done. I appreciate that Scottish Labour are finding this uncomfortable, Presiding Officer, but maybe they should just listen and learn from a Government that is taking action to tackle child poverty. It's very clear. I really appreciate the cabinet secretary taking an intervention. I'm just really interested to know what discussions you have had with the First Minister about the U-turns around school meals in schools. I wonder if you could discuss with us how often you've discussed that with the First Minister. Indeed, Presiding Officer, if there had been a U-turn I would have discussed it, but there has not, and therefore there's been no need to have that conversation. It's clear more than ever that the only route to a fairer and a more equal future—here we go, yes, I'm going to give you another example of how you can take this forward—is with independence. We simply cannot afford to be shackled to a Westminster system that is driving more children into poverty, one of the highest levels of income inequality in Europe and the highest poverty rates in north-west Europe. Presiding Officer, the two-child limit is just one policy, impacting on the financial support available to struggling families. There are many more that we could hold a debate on in this Parliament. That's exactly why I have written to the UK Work and Pensions Secretary of State calling for the UK Government to establish an essentials guarantee to ensure that people receive sufficient support to help them with everyday items such as food, transport and energy. An early step towards that would be scrapping the two-child limit and linking the level of social security support with the needs of families, and that's why this Government calls on colleagues from across the chamber to support our calls for the UK Government to make the right first step and scrap the two-child limit with immediate effect, ensuring that our most vulnerable families receive the support that they are entitled to. I move the motion in my name. I can advise the chamber that there is a bit of time in hand, therefore there should be time to recompense members who are taking interventions. All the more reason for interventions not to be shouted from a sedentary position. I now call on Miles Briggs to speak to a move amendment 10716.2. Mr Briggs, around nine minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm always pleased to be able to debate welfare in this Parliament. I welcome the fact that the Government has brought forward this debate. I think that maybe what we have seen is more to do with tomorrow's by-election than actually the Government wanting to have a proper debate on this. It is hard. Can I make some progress first? I might be happy to take you in later. I think that it is hard when you think of any UK Government in recent history, perhaps the Governments of the First and Second World Wars, which faced such huge economic challenges to see what the UK Government has faced from the fallout and consequences of the global financial crisis, the Covid-19 pandemic and the global energy and cost of living crisis. This is the backdrop for difficult spending decisions that the UK Government has had to take over the last decade, and which we will have to take in the future years ahead. Ministers here have often outlined to opposition parties the very same calculations that they have to take when deciding how to spend vital public services. The UK Government has a duty to manage the public finances carefully for future generations, and that has meant difficult decisions by UK ministers to control levels of public spending. That includes the welfare budget as well. The First Minister talked a lot about duties, and I thought that I would make my question more topical, because his Prime Minister today has talked about the importance of family. Why do the Tories think that a third child is of less value and less entitled to support than a first child? That is not the case. As the member clearly knows, this policy is about fairness for working families as well—all families having to take difficult decisions. There is, I believe, a political consensus in helping parents into work, which should be a Government priority. That requires a balanced system that provides strong work incentives and supports those who need it, but ensures fairness in our taxation system for all working families in this country. The cabinet secretary did not mention today, but it is a fact that the UK Government has provided over £94 billion in direct support to help families during the cost of living crisis. The overall approach by the UK Government is evidenced by the fact that, between 2016 and 2022, the number of people in couples with children in employment has increased by £372,000 across the UK, 2.7 per cent increase in employment rates for that group. It is right that the Government recognises that some claimants are not able to make the same choices about the number of children in their family. That is why reforms have been progressed by UK ministers. They have listened and they have brought forward exceptions to protect certain groups. That is why many of us have argued and worked constructively with ministers to make that case and to make sure that those changes are brought forward. Child benefit can be paid to all children, plus the additional amount in child tax credit or, indeed, universal credit for any qualifying disabled child or qualifying disabled young person. It is important to know again that the Cabinet Secretary did not want to highlight the fact that additional help for eligible childcare costs through working tax credit and universal credit is available regardless of the total number of children in a household. The reduction in universal credit taper rate and the £500 increase to work allowance, in addition to the normal benefit operating alongside the landmark kickstart and restart schemes, demonstrates a focus on supporting families to move into progressive work. A critical issue that I know that many families continue to face is the significant challenge around the availability and accessibility of affordable childcare. That is clearly impacting on many parents' decisions to take up paid work or the ability of many to increase their working hours. I know from constituents who have contacted me about this that finding childcare is becoming more and more difficult with families finding less flexibility, not more to take up work and training opportunities. The failure of SNP and Green Ministers to deliver on the Scottish Government's own policy of 1140 hours of funded early learning and childcare for years—three and four-year-olds—is not helping to provide that opportunity for people to access the childcare that they need to take up employment or training. As the National Day Nurseries Association has warned just today, it has emerged that childcare businesses in around a third of local authority areas have begun this academic year without knowing how much they are being paid for funded places. Today we could have debated that crisis facing our nursery sector and the fact that just three of Scotland's 32 local authorities are actually increasing early learning childcare entitlement. As I have said, there is a political consensus that the most suitable way to lift children out of poverty is to support parents into progressive work wherever possible. Children living in work-less households are approximately five times more likely to be in poverty than those living in households where all adults are working. I think that that is a consensus that we should work together on to find solutions. I wonder if the member can accept that the Westminster Conservative Government approach to benefits means that many families find it difficult to make sense of the DWP and to take part in the processes that are there for them to get their benefits and then move on to work. I am always for discussions both in the DWP and Social Security Scotland how we simplify access to benefits. I think that that is something both departments need to look up and take up, as the cabinet secretary is saying as well, is important. However, the UK Government has continued to take action to help families with the cost of living. For example, the national living wage is set to increase to at least £11 an hour from next April. That increase will benefit 2 million people of the lowest-paid workers in our country. I would like to make some progress. I have only got a few minutes left. I will maybe see you later on. Recent SNP green cuts, for example, though, to employability schemes are continuing to make that problematic for many families trying to seek that support. The UK Government has consistently said that the best way to support people's living standards is through good work, better skills and higher wages. Getting people into sustainable employment needs to be a key priority for both Governments working together. Very much enjoyed his speech today on childcare and employability, but I wonder if we could get back to the point of the motion. He could just tell the chamber whether he thinks a woman having to admit a rape is a fair thing or not in our society. As I have said, those are difficult decisions and Governments have had to take them. The cabinet secretary has also got that to his well-think about, but the failure of this Government is what this Parliament is responsible for. We have seen the failure, as we have heard already, for the roll-out of free school meals or the ability of local authorities to adequately fund childcare provisions or the scandal of the record number of children living in temporary accommodation in Scotland today. That is the Government's record, and it is one that the cabinet secretary needs to start debating more often than accusing others. SNP green ministers demand to know from opposition parties where additional spending commitments will come from. The cabinet secretary seems to think that the defence budget is the one that she would target, but where is £300 million coming from? The cabinet secretary is just saying not scrapping trident. That student politics is not about how we deliver for the people of this country. The Scottish Government has the largest budget in the settlement that it has received, the largest in the history of devolution. The Scottish Government has the powers to create new benefits. I know that I am coming to my conclusion now. The Scottish Government has the ability to top up reserved benefits if it wishes, and we as a Parliament have the opportunity to decide where we want to change welfare policies. Powers over welfare and over taxation to pay for those decisions were demanded and transferred precisely so that our Scottish Parliament and Scottish Governments could make different choices if the Scottish Government of the day so wanted. That is why recent polling conducted by YouGov and published in July found that 60 per cent of respondents agreed that the two-child limit on the number of children, parents and claim should be kept. In fact, 53 per cent of respondents here in Scotland agreed as well. As I said at the start of this debate, Governments here in Edinburgh, Cardiff and London face difficult spending decisions. As future decisions are taken, we should all work to make sure that our welfare system is fair to both those who need the support and to taxpayers, but ultimately that it is also sustainable. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Mr Wiggs. I now call on Paul O'Kane to speak to a move amendment 10716.1, around seven minutes. Mr O'Kane. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In opening this debate for Scottish Labour, I move the amendment in my name. We meet this afternoon in the middle of challenge poverty week. As I have said before in this chamber, there are few issues as important as tackling poverty. It should be the focus of far more of our time in this place, particularly in terms of how we use the powers of this Parliament to take action. The Government has chosen to bring a very limited debate today, of course, on a very pernicious part of the universal credit system, which, of course, it is entitled to do. However, given that it is challenge poverty week, given the scope of that week, the Government could have used their time to have a much wider debate about all the routes and facets of poverty and how we use our collective energies far more in tackling it. The Government has chosen not to do that. Perhaps it is more interested in the political context in which we meet today rather than, in a moment, in the wide-ranging constructive debate that we could be having about challenging poverty in communities across Scotland and, indeed, their own record in that regard. I will give way to Kate Forbes. The member rightly talks quite rightly about poverty being quite wide. Peter Kelly of the Poverty Alliance has described the benefit cap as the worst of the Tory's welfare reforms. How does it feel for Labour to be supporting the worst of the Tory's welfare reforms? I am coming on to speak about why universal credit does not work and why universal credit needs to be fundamentally reformed. We need to see wide-ranging change because it is not helping people, it is failing people. The member is writing her assertion there about the fact that those policies are failing people. The life chances of all our people are crucial to how we thrive as a society and as a world. It is clear that we need change of approach at UK level and at a Scottish level to lift more people out of poverty. Scottish Labour campaigned against the introduction of the two-child limit, and we continue to oppose it along with the cruel direction of 13 years of this Tory Government. A Tory Government that has demonstrated its unfitness to govern through the financial chaos that unleashed on the country last year, driving more and more people into poverty. Given the further chaos, including the adulation of Liz Truss and Heraclites this week in Manchester, it is clear that they have learned nothing and they take no responsibility for their actions. The next Labour Government will fundamentally reform universal credit, ensuring that it provides a proper safety net for those who need it. I thank Paul O'Kane for giving way. I am really interested in the Labour Amendment to talk about the new deal for working people. I absolutely agree with a lot of reasonable things in relation to the talk about universal credit. In this chamber previously, I think that Mr O'Kane and Mr O'Mara said that the two-child limit had to stay until that review was complete. I get clarity today as to whether the Labour position is that it will abolish the two-child limit immediately, or that we have to seek to get to the long grass for a universal credit review. That is clarity that I need this afternoon. I think that that is adorys for his intervention and for his supportive comments in terms of the new deal for working people. I hope that he might convince the front bench to back that amendment and to back those proposals, but I do not recall using that language. I will need to take the record. I am not sure that that is what Mr O'Mara and I said. What we have said that we are committed to is a fundamental reform of universal credit of all parts of the system to ensure that it works for people and to ensure that we remove those punitive methods from it. A Tory Government, if he would allow me to make some progress, I will give way to Cabinet Secretary in a moment. The next Labour Government, as I have said, is fundamentally committed to reforming universal credit, because the current system is not working, and we need wide-ranging reform. It is not just about changing some of the policies and some social security policies, it is about changing the whole system. Fundamental change is what Labour does when it is in power. I will give way to the cabinet secretary. I am grateful to the member for the opportunity to give him another opportunity to answer Mr Doris's questions, because he did not. We do not need a review to know if the two-child cat is a bad thing or not. I think that we all agree that it is a bad thing. So would the UK Labour Party implement a policy that scraps it? Do not wait on a review, because the member does not need to wait on a review, nor does his party to know that that is a bad thing. I have said that this policy is a pernicious policy, but what I am committed to and what the Labour Party is committed to is looking to every part of the universal credit system and ensuring that it works. The cabinet secretary wants to roll her eyes, but if she does not want to listen to the fact that we need to reform fundamentally universal credit and that will take time, then that is up to her. I am proud that the previous UK Labour Government lifted 2 million children and pensioners out of poverty. That includes 200,000 children in Scotland alone. How did we do that through a new social contract that included the national minimum wage, child benefit and tax credits? It is clear that this level of change is what we need now to tackle poverty across Scotland and the UK, because things have got so much worse since then. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation's annual state of the nation report highlighted just two days ago that the number of Scots still living in poverty is over 1 million, the level of deep poverty is on the rise at just shy of half a million and on child poverty specifically, 24 per cent of children are living in poverty after housing costs. Under the Tories and the SNP inequality and poverty have soared, there are 40,000 more children in poverty in Scotland compared to a decade ago and again we are not seeing the scale of action required. Our amendment outlines the new deal for working people, the importance of ensuring that that new deal is there to lift people out of poverty, because an estimated two thirds of children in poverty live in working households. 60 per cent of families impacted by the two-child cap are in work. Ten per cent of all employees in Scotland are stuck on low pay and 72 per cent of that group are women, so that is why the new deal for working people would be transformative. It was endorsed by the TUC. We heard derision from the cabinet secretary about the derision of a document and a policy backed by the trade union congress, because what is it going to do is ban zero-hours contracts, outlaw fire and rehire practices and raise the minimum wage to a living wage in order to tackle insecure work and make sure that work pays as a key route to ending poverty. Indeed, the TUC called it the biggest upgrade in workers' rights in a generation, so I do hope that the Government will be able to support a document and a policy supported by the TUC today and back our amendment. Once again for the member to give me the opportunity, we will back the amendment tonight. Would Keir Starmer back it though, because that's where I think he's got a difficulty, not with those bensys, but with UK Labour leadership? I'm not entirely sure what the cabinet secretary is driving at. Angela Rana, Keir Starmer, in conjunction with the TUC, this document, endorsed by the TUC, he will back to the letter this policy outlined, which we will deliver in Government, so I have no idea what the cabinet secretary is driving at in her contribution today. Let's be clear, Presiding Officer. This is a transformative opportunity to raise people out of poverty wages and into secure work, because we know that the SNP haven't got the best track record when it comes to things like paying the living wage in Government contracts or, indeed, using zero-hours contracts to recruit campaigners. Just a few weeks ago, they abandoned the parental transition fund of up to £15 million a year to tackle the financial barriers that parents face who want to enter the labour market. We'll no doubt again in this debate today here about if only we had more powers, things would be better, if only independence was here, things would be better, but perhaps they ought to explain firstly why they're not using the powers that they have. It's not just me who is saying that. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation again highlighted this week that simply complaining about the powers they do not have, quote, is to deny its direct responsibilities for things like employability, economic development skills and so on. If they don't want to listen to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, then maybe they should listen to their own poverty inequality commission, which, in May 23, said in relation to the child poverty delivery plan, they are concerned that it does not seem to have the necessary clarity or sense of urgency about delivery of their actions. To conclude, it is time for fundamental reform of universal credit. It is time for a new deal for working people to drive up wages and standards and lift people out of poverty. It is time to move on from two failing Governments and deliver a real change for people across Scotland and the United Kingdom. The author Andrew Horowitz once wrote that childhood, after all, is the first precious coin that poverty steals from a child. In Scotland today, that statement is only too accurate. At its heart, today's debate is about poverty and, more specifically, child poverty. Over one million people—one in four children—live in poverty in Scotland today. That is one in four. That is around 250,000 of them. In 2023, in one of the wealthiest nations on earth, that figure is unacceptable. It is outrageous. It is all the more shameful, when you note that 68 per cent of children who are living in poverty are from working households. 29 per cent of children live with a disabled family member. It has been five years since the Child Poverty Act set that target of fewer than 18 per cent of children living in relative poverty by 2024. However, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reminds us that that reduction target will be unlikely to be met in their words without significant additional Scottish Government action. We are on the eve of that deadline and we are nowhere. Numerous studies have found that children who grew up in poverty experienced many disadvantages that can have a negative impact on their health and significant social consequences. Those effects are felt both during childhood and into adulthood. I saw that impact with my own eyes during the decade that I spent working with disadvantaged young people and I see it today in my constituency. Poverty is affecting children's health, education and even their cognitive development. It is an adverse childhood experience. Every child in Scotland should have the right to safety, to warmth, to a roof over their head and food in their belly. It is the duty of this chamber and this Government to do absolutely everything in its power to alleviate this crisis. It is a crisis and to move forward to a Scotland free of child poverty as soon as is humanly possible. Let me be clear from the outset that Liberal Democrats oppose the two child benefit cap. We have always opposed the two child benefit cap. We opposed it when it was introduced by the Conservative Government in 2017 and we absolutely oppose it now. It is unfair, it is unjust and it is an illiberal policy. The child poverty action group has called it one of the biggest drivers of rising child poverty. They say that removing it across the UK would immediately pull 250,000 children out of poverty overnight and take 850,000 children out of deep poverty. We must also hold the SNP Green Government to account for its own failures when it comes to social security in Scotland. I will take an intervention from Bob Doris. Does Mr Hamilton agree with me that axing the two child cap and the rape clause does not have to wait for a review of universal credit? It should happen as speedily as possible. Had I checked the official report, Mr O'Kane's position was indeed a review of universal credit first, certainly mine to the interpretation of it. What is the view of the Liberal Democrats? Alex Cole-Hamilton I would support its abolition today. I think that it is a moral imperative that we rid ourselves of this abhorrent policy. I absolutely agree with the sentiment that is expressed by Bob Doris. Right now, those applying for adult disability payment in Scotland are facing longer waits in many cases than they did under the DWP system. When someone who is in receipt of PIP and living in Scotland reports a change in circumstances, they are currently forced to wait three months to be moved over and only then to Social Security Scotland start work on their change in circumstances. If, during that time, as is often the case, their condition worsens and they are entitled to a higher rate, they are missing out for that period. Something that should happen at the touch of a button is taking months and denying disabled people the support that they need, when they need it most. That lays bare the incompetence of the Scottish Government in removing the dedicated Social Security Minister to properly oversee the transition at its most critical juncture. The Scottish Government promised fairness, respect and dignity. We all voted for that in the new social security arrangement. Instead, people are being left to face uncertainty for months while a decision is being made and they wait sometimes in poverty. We fought for more powers for this Parliament, but it is taking far too long for the Scottish Government to get itself ready, leaving people with the DWP for over a decade. That is not good enough for families across Scotland. Some of the most vulnerable families across Scotland. This week, it was revealed that the Government have quietly scrapped a key plank of their anti-poverty strategy. It was only last year that ministers pledged to create a new parental transition fund to tackle the financial barriers faced by parents trying to get into work. Shirley-Anne Somerville has now said that it would, in her words, would not be possible to deliver and that it has run its course as a concept. The scheme was welcomed, how will it be? I am grateful to the member to point out the opportunity about why it cannot work because of the current powers and the fact that, if we put something like that in place, reserved benefits will therefore be impacted and people would not find themselves any better off. It is the practicalities of devolved and reserved that are made as have to look again at different ways. We need to discuss this, but we need to discuss the genuine reasons why we have had to move on. That is the implications on reserved benefits. Alex Cole-Hamilton The cabinet secretary will recognise the deep disappointment that this has created. This was a scheme that was welcomed and recommended both by charities and those who lived in experience and poverty. The Joseph Roundtree Foundation, in full knowledge of the facts, has called that U-turn, that move deeply concerning. It is clear then. Martin Whitfield If I have got time, yes. I am very grateful to Alex Cole-Hamilton to give way. On that very point, it was parents themselves who expressed the desire and need for this fund. It seems beyond belief that the Scottish Government would commit to something that subsequently turns out that they do not, in fact, have the power to deal with. That seems to be promising something before they understand what they are being asked. Alex Cole-Hamilton I am very grateful for Martin Whitfield's intervention. Given the length of time that we have had to understand the ecosystem of the benefits that we have in control over in this country, it is astonishing that parents would give that false hope in that way. It is clear that this is a Government that talks a good game on supporting those least well off, but when push comes to shove, they fall well below par and often fail to deliver it. Scottish Liberal Democrats want to get the Scottish social security system working faster and with the dignity that was promised—the dignity, and I say again that we all in this place voted for. We want to make childcare much more flexible and accessible, both to families and work, and those who want to attend to the labour market but are a considerable distance from it and cannot access things like evening training opportunities for want of basic childcare. We want to introduce a nursery premium for children in deprived areas and introduce a national legal entitlement to youth work for every child in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats believe in a Scotland that supports the most vulnerable people in our society. We want every child to be able to learn to grow and to play, secure the knowledge that there will always be food on the table and in a warm safe space to call their home. That should be the case for every child in this country, and we must all in this place endeavour to make it so. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Cole-Hamilton. We will now move to the open part of the debate, and we still have some time in hand. Members will be pleased to hear in terms of the impressive number of interventions that we have already witnessed this afternoon. I call Kevin Stewart to be followed by Ross McCall. Mr Stewart. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let's look at the impact that the two-child benefit cap had in Scotland in 2022-23. 80,936 children lived in households where benefits were reduced due to the two-child benefit cap. The cap was directly applied to 32,616 children, and the cap deprived households of £95.7 million in social security. That cap put 20,000 children in poverty after housing costs. Those are not Scottish Government figures. They come directly from the House of Commons library. However, those are not figures. Those are children, families and people who are impoverished by the two-child cap. After 13 years of brutal Tory austerity, a hard Brexit that Scotland never voted for and the horrors of the economically illiterate trust budget, people and communities are facing real hardship. Now we know that the Labour Party is only interested in entrenching cruel Tory policies, not abolishing them. It is very clear at this point that Labour policy is no different from that of the Tories. I will give way to Mr Marra. I am sorry that Mr Stewart seems to have missed the other speeches in the debate. Labour is committed to a fundamental review of universal credit. It could not be more starkly different from the Tory position of maintaining the benefit caps and the position that it has taken at the moment. It is a fundamental review to change the way systems that it can deliver for the poorest people in this country. That is not what Keir Starmer has said about the two-child cap. Keir Starmer has said that he will look to see what the finances are like after the Tories leave power if Labour manages to take power. That is what we want to see. What we want to see is a policy that is barbaric. We want to end to that immediately. I do not think that it is beyond the wit of the Labour Party to say in the hearing now that they want rid of that policy now. They say that they think that it is unfair. Let us get rid of it now. Let us be clear about all of that, because this is the price of Westminster control. At the SNP, the Scottish Government is absolutely clear that we oppose the policy in every form and will continue to demand its abolition. I hope that all like-minded members from across the chamber will back the Scottish Government motion today. I also hope that members will take cognisance of the experts on the issue. Ms Forbes earlier on quoted Peter Kelly of the Poverty Alliance. He said that the two-child limit in the benefit cap represent the worst of the welfare reforms of the last 13 years. Any politician that claims to care about poverty, about increasing food bank use and about the wellbeing of kids needs to commit to scrapping that terrible policy. Action for children has said that any Government serious about tackling child poverty will eventually have to confront the cruel reality of the two-child limit, a policy designed to actively stop poor children receiving assistance to meet their minimum needs. The child poverty action group in Scotland made clear that the two-child limit, one of the most brutal policies of our times, affects over 80,000 children in Scotland alone, pushing up to 15,000 at the poverty. Across the UK, one in 10 children are affected, and they said that all political leaders must commit to scrapping it. What have the politician said? Anna Sarwar has himself previously said of the Tories that this is the party that introduced the rape clause, which is a horrific piece of legislation within their welfare reforms. Where is that strength of feeling now? Why do we have to wait for some review? How long will that review be? Where is that strength of feeling now? Why will Anna Sarwar and Scottish Labour not commit to that abolition right now? The Scottish Government has taken action on tackling poverty. An estimated 90,000 children have been lifted out of poverty because of SNP policies. Last year, more than £3 billion was invested across a range of programmes that are targeted at low-income households with £1.25 billion directly benefiting children through interventions such as the historic child payment. I have no time, Mr Whithfield. By prioritising tackling poverty, the Government here is not only addressing the cost of living crisis but addressing the cost of the union crisis. Imagine what we could have achieved if Scotland did not have to pay for and mitigate the Westminster mistakes. Christopher of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently told the Social Justice and Social Security Committee that our social security system in the UK at the minute is fundamentally inadequate. People are hungry in this country because of it. The UK Government bears an enormous amount of responsibility for that. This Parliament has stepped into some of that space with good things such as the Scottish child payment. That is a good thing. We know that a Labour Government will be no different from a Tory one in this issue, proven today. Sturmer has told us so and Anna Sarwar has no option but to agree. Well, I don't. In my opinion, it is time for us to put a halt to the cost of the union policies that impact so harshly on our children. It is time for us to control all of the social security powers here. It is time for independence. I would like to start by noting the amendment to the motion from my colleague Miles Briggs. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to focus on devolved issues such as the roll-out of benefits through Social Security Scotland and other policies that will ultimately benefit Scottish children. It is to that that I would like to make my comments. No surprise there. The people of Scotland are looking for this Parliament to use its time to debate issues that are affecting them right now, such as delivering on the promise, raising attainment in our schools, following through on school meals for its primary pupils or funding-free breakfasts, like fixing the failing 1140-hours-free childcare provision, or how about providing local authorities with the funding promised for digital devices. Only one in 10 school children have received their free device. 90 per cent of Scottish children do not have a laptop or a tablet pledged pre-election, and some were cynical than I might think that was blatant politicking. I am not taking any interventions. I am going to get my points across. Based on a conversation that I overheard earlier, statistically, just to advise, the national average of children per household in the UK is 1.7. Of course, that equates to two children, and I will just leave that there. Currently, the SNP in Greens, as the parties in government in Scotland, can use the extensive devolved powers to make changes that they believe are pertinent to Scotland—in other words, to make choices. The Government has chosen to spend more than £733 million to, in part, top up the Scottish child payment on top of the UK Government's additional support and exemptions for the most vulnerable in society. Do not look now, but that could be devolution at work. We all know that the Government is about making choices, but we think that we will make positive differences to people's lives. Not many of them are easy. There are mostly difficult choices that highlight a direction of travel, and it is easy to promise everything, but when it comes to delivery, we find that it is not possible or that the budget will not allow it. We should be growing up about the fact and stand by our decisions on how we choose to spend taxpayers' money. I note the comments from the cabinet secretary on focus on children and choices, and I will continue on that theme. The SNP Government could have provided our children with the best and most rewarding route out of poverty, which is a first-class education system, but we know that they have all abandoned their promise to eliminate the property-related attainment gap. The former First Minister said to judge her on education. The previous minister for further education, higher education and science, Shirley-Anne Somerville, ditched that commitment. In January of this year, she said that, in an education system, it would be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to get to the point of zero, but that does not mean that we stop trying. Any national five student of modern studies will tell you that the way out of poverty is through education, education, education. In 2016, the SNP widely publicised its dedication to a shared commitment right across education to close the attainment gap between children from the most and least deprived backgrounds. They said that it was top priority. Seven years later, the situation has not improved, it is just not good enough, and we could be debating that today. Or how about the SNP Government could have delivered on their promise for free breakfasts and lunches to all primary one to seven pupils? In 2020, John Swinney said that, if the party retains power after the Holyrood elections in May, it would fund free breakfasts and lunches for all children primary one to seven, and it would be implemented from August 22, making Scotland the first nation in the UK to offer universal free primary school meals. How laudable by August 22 the promise had been broken. The First Minister announced in the programme for government that they would deliver free school meals to all pupils and primaries one to five, and to work with COSLA in the coming year to prepare the expansion of free school meals for primary six and seven during 2026. Add this to the fact that Scotland has the lowest level of school breakfast provision of all the four UK nations, with 41 per cent of schools in Scotland having no breakfast provision. It's just not good enough, and we could be debating that today. Or how about the Scottish Government could have made the investment required to ensure that the delivery of the promise was on track and deliverable in the promised timescales. The promise oversight board does not believe that delivering the original aims of plan 21-24 is realistic within the timeframe, and they state that Scotland does not yet have a single route map to 2030 in place. A point that the former First Minister agreed with me on in this chamber. The youngest, the most vulnerable and the most promising of our society here in Scotland are being promised so much, but the SNP have chosen to disregard those pledges with no one taking any responsibility for those choices, and instead resorting to using children in poverty for obvious political gain, and it is just not good enough. I'm not taking interventions, I'm nearly finished. Without sound to sound too cliche, Scotland's children are the future of Scotland. We have a duty to provide them with the greatest opportunities, and this is not doing that. For nothing more than political tomfoolery today, we do them with the service and we should be ashamed. Thank you, Mr McCall. I now call the point of order, Kevin Stewart. I seek your guidance, Presiding Officer, because this is a motion that has been brought forward today around about the two-child cap. It is very specific, this motion. I recognise that the opposition parties don't really want to talk about this and are deviant, and I'm happy to debate any issue, but I seek your guidance around about the motion itself and the fact that there is so much deviation in the chamber in this debate. I thank Mr Stewart for his contribution. I think that Mr Stewart needs to look at not simply the motion, but the amendments that were accepted by the Presiding Officer, and I think that he'll find the answers that he seeks there. I call Kate Forbes to be followed by Karen Mawchen. I'm the oldest of four children, being one of four was great growing up, but, interestingly enough, none of us were treated as more or less important or more or less entitled to support by virtue of our position being born. That would, of course, be utterly bizarre and indeed immoral, which are exactly the two words that I would use to characterise the two-child benefit cap. In fact, I'd add in a few more, inexplicable, disgraceful, abhorrent. Perhaps we're over-familiar with references to the two-child benefit cap, so it's lost some of its initial shock factor. For clarity, the cap means that families are prevented from accessing essential, essential, welfare, fair support for their third or subsequent children. In their time of need, a child is essentially abandoned by the state for one reason and one reason alone, the order of their birth. So often families seek help because of unforeseen circumstances, bereavements, relationships breaking down, ill health, disability, caring responsibilities. None of those are a child's fault, whether they are the oldest or the youngest, and all of those scenarios create unimaginable burdens that are far too heavy for any child to bear. But rather than find support and help that are penalised, excluded and ignored, their families are deprived of essential additional support. You often associate Government dictats about family sizes with other, let's say, more authoritarian Governments, and yet the two-child benefit cap is rooted in the same ideology. In Scotland, we must unite in tackling child poverty. I think that there have been lots of good debates in this Parliament about the work that we need to see to tackle child poverty. It is a disgrace. In fact, it shames us all that in a land of plenty children are homeless, hungry and cold. That is why the SNP has done a huge amount of work tackling child poverty, introducing the game-changing Scottish child payment. That matters enormously. As Kevin Stewart said, you can talk about figures of 90,000 children not living in poverty that would otherwise live in poverty. Yet for every child who needs it, the difference is profound. In Scotland, under the SNP, we build child welfare policies on fairness and dignity. As Shirley-Anne Somerville said, I will, Jeremy Balfour. In that point that she just made, can she then clarify when she was the finance cabinet secretary and, before that, Mr Swinney, why would the three-school mirrors still not being rolled out in Scotland, which she promised? The point is that they are being rolled out, but here is another point. Three quarters of a billion pounds are being spent by this Government just to stand still combating UK Government policies. Imagine if all of that was adding value and we did not need to ensure that the worst atrocities of UK welfare reforms were plunging children into poverty as we speak. We continue to spend so much of our time fighting and funding policy decisions imposed on us by a Conservative Government. The Tory's two-child benefit cap and the wider welfare policy has driven up to 30,000 children into poverty in Scotland, an atrocious legacy after more than a decade of Tory austerity. Across the UK, the two-child limit now affects one in 10 children. The child poverty action group called that a tragic milestone. You will not see that on the Tory manifesto for the next election. Scrapping the policy could lift up to 15,000 children out of poverty at a stroke of a pen. Who among us, who among us, would opt to keep those children in poverty when they could be helped and supported with a simple change of policy? I will tell you who is opting to do that. First of all, the Conservatives and perhaps you would expect that. But who would have thought that Labour would choose to continue the two-child cap for as long as it takes them to do a review of what we already know is wrong? I hear the calls for urgency across our advisory. Does she realise that we are perhaps 14 months away from a general election and that actually her Government could mitigate this immoral situation now in her own words? The member raises a vitally important point, which is why three quarters of £1 billion is currently being spent on mitigations, but he fails to recognise the £3 billion that is being spent right now supporting families and households across Scotland who are facing the challenges around costs of living and poverty. The Scottish child payment is directly ensuring that 90,000 children are not in poverty. Labour is supposedly progressive and yet they are content to at the very least delay. Michael Marra talks about, let's say, 14 months to the next election. He is suggesting what? Up to another year? Two years? Three years? On top of that, whilst you do a review until at some point that is not a great offer to the Scottish people. The bottom line, Presiding Officer, is that for families in need it doesn't matter whether it is a Tory Government or a Labour Government, the benefit cap will still apply and that, Presiding Officer, is the reason why it will only ever be the SNP and it will only ever be the Scottish Parliament which will stand up for every Scott, young and old. I now call Carol Mocken to be followed by Marie McNair. I want to be clear. The two-child limit is a cruel, damaging and appalling Tory policy which I fully oppose. I agree that it is a punitive measure which targets working families, kills hope and aspiration and it has no place in the modern progressive society that we want to create. I have made it clear before and make it clear once again that I deplore the Tory Government's attack on working-class people. They are the friends of the rich and show no interest in redistributing wealth to those most in need. Sadly, the Tory amendment today just further highlights their ignorance to the damage that they have caused to both people's lives and their economy. Because of the incompetence of this Tory Government, any incoming Labour Government would have to analyse the financial position left by the Tories, which will undoubtedly be extremely challenging. However, I and I know many others all on these benches will be chapping on the doors and calling for this policy, along with many of the other cruel welfare policies to be removed. I thank Ms Mocken for giving way. I get the fact that Labour is going to have to look at the finances. However, the shadow defence secretary has committed the billions upon billions of pounds spending on trident. Why can Labour not do the same thing with this two-child benefit cap? Thank you to the member for that intervention. Can I be absolutely honest that I do not want to play this game? I want us to have a proper discussion about how we change the lives of people who are living in poverty. In this debate, Labour has made it clear that it will be doing all that it can to review these dreadful cruel welfare policies and bring in proper welfare for people. Despite what the cabinet secretary and the backbenchers are saying, they are unable to accept that Labour has a strong track record of lifting people, including many children, out of poverty. I have every confidence that they will do it again. I will take an intervention from the member. I want to know what discussions Labour has had with Rape Crisis Scotland to see how we can make the rape clause fairer. I think that we are debating the fact that the rape clause is absolutely not fair, so that would be my first point. I am not aware at what level the party has, but I have made my position absolutely clear that this clause should go. When a Labour Government comes to power and a Labour Government is coming, we will be making changes that make people's lives easier. I want to now turn to the SNP Government who has brought this motion forward today. I am keen like others to outline some of the context surrounding today's debate. Just this week, we learned from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that one in 10 Scots live in very deep poverty, making up almost half of all those living in poverty. The same report that is rightly critical of the UK Government maintains that the Scottish Government could go much further, and I agree. This should be the focus of today's debate. What can this place do right here, right now, but this Government chose not to do that? The Labour Benches do not think that the current UK Government is setting a bar that anyone should be looking to compare to. Do those on the Government's back benches? I hope you don't. We should be far exceeding the performance of a Conservative Government that has imposed austerity on our communities, wrecked the economy and hindered growth. The prominence of poverty, particularly child poverty in Scotland, is devastating. I hear the members talking about that. It remains extremely prominent on the Scottish National Party Government's watch. I have often asked myself why do the back benches not challenge their leadership to go further. That is the ask that I have. A good Government comes from the pressure of those behind it. Is it merely doing a bit better than the Tories? Is that enough for the back benches, of course? John Swinney? I am very grateful to Carol Mawkin for giving way. On the subject of pressure from back benches, the front bench here needs no encouragement to do things such as increasing the Scottish child payment to £25 per week per child. The front bench has been prepared to take that particular initiative, but Carol Mawkin has to accept that, while the Government has acted, it is presiding over a Labour Party that is not acting to alleviate the suffering faced by children and young people in our society today. Carol Mawkin? Can I be absolutely clear? I do not want to play this game. I have given credit many times to the party and Government here. I just quote to John Swinney to prove my point. The scale of the financial difficulties that families are facing greatly outstrips the financial assistance offered by the Scottish Government. That is a report from Save the Children this year. It goes on to say that more the Scottish Government must do to protect young children from the impacts of poverty. It is the responsibility of all of us, including the back benches, to push the Government to do all that it can. In Scottish Labour's amendment tonight, I hope that the Government benches—I am going to make progress if you do not mind, I am on six minutes. I am glad that they are supporting the amendment tonight, but I want to make one last point in this challenge poverty week. We live in a Scotland, children in East Ayrshire and South Ayrshire in my own region are growing up in a Scotland where one in four children are in poverty. They are poverty because of an action and poor decision making from Governments both north and south of the border. Members, it is our responsibility to take action. Experts are saying that we are not going far enough. Communities are saying that we are not going far enough. It is time for the SNP and the Tories to listen and act. Otherwise, you should immediately make way and give other parties a chance who will deliver, not just say they will deliver, on policies that will change poverty in this country. I rise to speak in support of the Scottish Government motion in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville. The two-child policy in its important rape clause is one of the most disgusting welfare policies to emerge from Westminster. It is designed to set families up to fail and deny children the most basic levels of subsistence and support to help them thrive. The diverse nature of rationing the subsistence rates for children has no part in a decent society. Yet the two main political parties who want to govern at Westminster are planning to keep this approach as part of their welfare state. That is not just a policy that lacks compassion, but it is also one that fails miserably in achieving the aims that the UK Government set out. It was asserted that its implementation would provide incentives to find more work and influence decisions about having children. A three-year research project funded by the Nuffield Foundation looking at the two-child limit and the benefit cap found no evidence that either policy meets its behavioural aims and, in some cases, has had the opposite effect. In fact, the research instead gathers waves of evidence demonstrating that the benefit cap and the two-child limit are causing extreme hardship to affected families. It is a cruel policy and has been widely condemned by anti-poverty campaigners. John Dickie of the Child Poverty Action Group describes it as a cruel tax on siblings and he is clear on it punishing impact saying, we would not deny a third child NHS care on an education, but how is it right to deny children much needed support because of the brothers or sisters they have? The two-child limit is one of the most brutal policies of our times. All that policy does is push more than a million children into poverty or deeper poverty. It is time for all Westminster party leaders to commit to removing the two-child limit before more children are harmed. The N Child Poverty Coalition has described the two-child policy as one of the biggest drivers of child poverty. If that is not enough to want to scrap it, what about its rape clause, one of the most dreadful pieces of social policy ever imagined? Labour used to call it immoral and outrageous. Astonishingly, they now talk about making it fairer. Ingender have said, forced disclosure of sexual violence to gain access to social security will re-traumatise individual women who have survived rape by forcing them to disclose sexual violence at a time and in a context, not of their own choosing, on pain of deeper impoverishment. Forced disclosure of sexual violence can exacerbate post-traumatic stress disorder and increase a sense of shame and isolation. Instead of a commitment to scrap it from Westminster, we are told that it is here to stay regardless of who forms the next UK Government. If the two-child policy is not bad enough, there are families in the UK who are hit by a double whammy of the two-child policy and the benefit cap. Fortunately, in Scotland, we are doing everything we can to mitigate the benefit cap and other cruel UK policy. We are making available nearly £84 million in discretionary housing payment and that £69.7 million to mitigate the bedroom tax, £6.2 million for the benefit cap and another £7.9 million to mitigate other UK welfare cuts. We have also increased the Scottish child payment to £25 and expanded its eligibility and investment of £405 million, helping over 300,000 children across the country. It was not that long ago that other political parties were just asking to set just a fiver. On UK welfare policy, we are seeing a race to the bottom between the Tories and Labour. Their tough rhetoric is increasing stigma and their social policy agenda gives little hope to families in greatest need. Would she accept that universal credit, as I outlined in my contribution, is fundamentally broken and needs to be reformed in all of its facets? Would she also accept that Labour's new deal for working people will be a huge game changer in terms of people getting into work, well-paid work and lifting people out of poverty? The Institute for Public Policy Research pointed out that UK policy sees social security in narrow terms with harmful rhetoric and ill-informed stereotypes. Conditions are saying that it has enabled the UK to maintain one of the least generous rates of income replacement across the OECD. That women's policy is heavily contrasted with the dignity, fairness and respect approach that is driving us forward in Scotland. No two-child policy with the Scottish child payment, no apparent rape clause, no private sector medical assessments that cause so much pain and humiliation, no sanction regime that has caused the cruel death of so many, to name just a few important differences in approach. It is clear that there is no desire from any of the political parties that aspire to govern at Westminster to bring about change, change that brings a real safety net for when life chances require it, change that shows a compassion that no child should be left in poverty. It is very clear, presiding officer, that change will only come when Scotland is independent. I now call Maggie Chapman, who is joining us remotely, to be followed by Bob Doris. Six years ago, the distinguished academic Professor Jonathan Bradshaw wrote, The two-child policy is the worst ever social security policy, because it results in unprecedented cuts to the living standards of the poorest children in Britain. If the Government needed to reduce the deficit, almost any other expenditure cut or tax increase would be less damaging. The aspiration of the policy to influence fertility is discriminatory and hopeless. The exceptions will be unpleasant to operate. It is morally odious, vindictively conceived, and it will not last. He was right about everything, except so far, his final point. Shamefully, it has lasted. Another Jonathan, the Labour MP Jonathan Ashworth, then Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, gave an interview to the Daily Mirror earlier this year. He agreed with a former Tory welfare minister in describing the two-child limit as a vicious policy and said that, again, a quote, the idea that this policy helps to move people into work is completely offensive nonsense. Just a few short weeks later, Keir Starmer was equally clear. Why wouldn't he be? It's an issue of such moral clarity agreed by civil society, by charities, academics, unions, faith groups, conscience-strickentories themselves, and voices from across the spectrum of Sir Keir's own party. So, what did he say? We are not changing that policy. That this is where the empty politics of focus groups has brought us. This is what our children face, a fate recognised as morally repugnant yet normalised by both players in a cynical game of first past the post. Let us remind ourselves why both Jonathan's were right. Austerity itself was, of course, based on a lie, propped up by analytical incompetence and feeding upon bigotries of the cruelest and most inflammatory kind. The attempts to turn George Osborne into some sort of national treasure reveal some terrifyingly short memories. Like so many other vials of austerity's poison, it has failed even in what it set out to do. It hasn't reduced public spending in anything but the most trivial and short-term sense, for we know that the real costs of the child poverty it created are wide and deep, affecting not only those children themselves but their families, their communities and society beyond. Those costs are born in relationships and well-being, in health and education, in employment and economic stability. If the architects of austerity thought about child poverty for no other reason, they might have considered its impacts on the economy and public spending far outweighing the petty cash they snatched away. It hasn't enabled parents to find work, or for the majority who are already employed, to work more hours or to receive higher pay. In fact, as this year's LSE study showed, it often heightens the obstacles they face, including childcare costs, time constraints and mental health pressures. It hasn't stopped people from having more than two children. Again, the evidence is there, evidence that anyone with a heart could have expected to see. Families have three or more children for many reasons and in many circumstances. Storms may come to us all, bereavement or breakdown, loss of relationship or livelihood, illness or isolation. To slam the door on the smallest is neither social nor secure. It's barely even human. For this policy has real effects, though not those it was advertised to bring. As we all know too well, the two-child limit increases child poverty, especially for the most vulnerable families. It brings with it the old enemies of childhood, hunger, cold, homelessness, family debt. It punishes women, especially lone parents, as they struggle, going hungry themselves to keep their children warm and fed. It violates the most basic human rights, including the obligation under the UNCRC to give primary consideration to the best interests of the child. It breaches reproductive rights and blatantly discriminates by religion, culture and gender. I'll give way to Martin Whitfield. I'm very grateful to the member to give way. She is indeed making a very powerful speech, particularly around the UNCRC. Would she agree with me that fundamentally the safety net of the social security system is not in any way helped by the current universal credit and actually a review of the whole system is actually what the people of the United Kingdom need who seek to rely on it? I agree partially with Martin Whitfield that the universal credit is part of the problem, but that's no excuse to delay the scrapping of this obscene immoral policy right now. It could be done tomorrow if we so chose to do. Because we know it undermines healthy relationships by incentivising separation and discouraging blended families, and its clumsy cynical exceptions, including the chilling rape clause, reach new depths of indignity, dehumanisation and danger. There is no more bitter example of the cost, the simple human cost of our shackles to Westminster. We know that the Scottish child payment is making a difference, a real and vital difference to thousands of children's lives, but that should be an addition, not an attempt to fill the chasm of this deliberate shortfall, this conscious cruelty. Earlier, Miles Briggs talked about fairness in taxation and fairness in spending. I wonder when he will press his Westminster Government to tackle tax avoidance or the obscene profits made at our expense by energy companies during the current cost crisis. That money could be used for so much good. It shouldn't be poorer families made to pay. There are MSPs here who have spoken out against their party line, their party's infatuation with the spiteful policy. I thank them, but I challenge them and their silent colleagues to do more. We are not here to represent Mondeo man, Waitrose woman or any other cartoon characters of the spin doctors' stunted imaginations. We are here to represent the children of Scotland, the families and communities that care for them. If we are truly to do so, the two-child limit cannot last. It shall not last. I now call Bob Torres to be followed by Martin Wickfield. Just a few weeks ago, I led a member's debate in this Parliament seeking to secure cross-party support to speak with one voice to oppose the deeply oppressive and damaging two-child cap and associated rape clause. I had sought to phrase my motion in such a way to make it as straightforward for colleagues and other parties, particularly the Labour party, to support. I was deeply disappointed then that the Labour party to an MSP simply did not sign that motion. Today's Scottish Government motion is a further opportunity for Labour to show movement, to bow to pressure and to do the right thing. As Labour colleagues decide how to vote at decision time today, I would refer them to the questions that I asked Michael Marra MSP and Paul O'Kane MSP during that debate. I made clear to them that the motion that I put before Parliament at its heart sought to do something very simple. It aimed to put pressure on a UK Conservative Government that is wedi to the rape clause and the two-child limit. It was an opportunity for Labour to join the SNP in defending the 4,000 children in Glasgow and 20,000 children across Scotland pushed into poverty by those UK policies. In response to replies, illustrated the confusion and chaos that has been part of the Labour position on the matter for a prolonged period of time. Mr O'Kane was asked to rule out the rape clause, and he has said, I talk about fundamental reform of UC because that is what I believe in. However, unfunded spending commitments cannot be made because working people will pay the price. All I did was ask Mr O'Kane to reject the rape clause in the two-child cap, and that was the reply. Mr Marra stated, I associate myself entirely with the contents of the motion. That was the motion that I had before Parliament, Presiding Officer. There is very little in it, if anything at all, that I disagree with. The challenge that is faced by any incoming Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country is that we have the money to be able to pay the bills. Mr Marra is, of course, in part right. The issue is that, with the rape clause and the two-child limit, the UK Conservative Government denies the most vulnerable families in Scotland the level of income that they require to pay their bills, their electricity bills, their gas bills, their food bills, their shopping bills to buy clothes for their children and much more. Those are the bills that should focus on the mind of the UK Labour Party. Unfortunately, the conclusion that I had to reach then was that UK Labour's elected representatives in Scotland would rather deny vital support to the most vulnerable citizens than challenge Sir Keir Stammer. We should not be deflected by any chat about Labour reviewing universal credit. The two-child cap and rape clause can end now, irrespective of any future review of universal credit. I can understand that that change could be made now by the Conservative Government. Does he recognise that it cannot be made now by the Labour Party? Does he recognise that? I thank Mr Marra for that intervention. It is a really helpful intervention because should there be a future UK Labour Government, they could abolish that within months, perhaps even weeks, and that commitment has not been given this afternoon by Labour. Can anyone imagine designing a UK benefits system that identifies need and seeks to support those who clearly have such a need, but it effectively also says, will help you to support your first two children, but you are on your own with any siblings, they simply do not count, their needs do not count. At its core, that is precisely what the benefits cap and two-child limit does, and it does not require a Labour review of universal credit to reach that position. The Scottish Government has been clear that any benefits system that operates in such a way is immoral, it is unethical. The Scottish Government has not only condemned such a system, we have acted to put in place an alternative dignified system here in Scotland within our devolved competencies and within the constraints of our budgets, and the difference has been transformational with the delivery of our game-changing Scottish child payment. We roundly rejected any suggestion of a two-child limit or a rape clause. We designed a system based on fairness, on dignity and respect, and that is all that we are asking Labour to do as well. Would he, however, accept that there are significant challenges in the delivery of social security in Scotland, not least in terms of the wait times that exist for adult disability payment, and indeed challenges with getting the right advice and support for people across Scotland? What Mr O'Kane is saying is that Social Security Scotland will continue to strive to improve the service offered to people of Scotland based on dignity, fairness and respect. I am absolutely happy to confirm that. That is not about politics, of course, it is about people. It is about offering vital support to people in their life for families that are really struggling. I previously mentioned in the chamber how Glasgow North West citizens advice bureau based on my constituency, how they have been helping those impacted by the rape clause and the benefits cap. Here is what they told me. A bureau supported a lone parent of four children aged between 14 and four months who needed help with energy debt and support to progress a child maintenance claim. No one plans to be financially difficult. The parent found herself in financial difficulty when she separated from her husband and became reliant on universal credit, and she was entitled to support for only two of her four children. Glasgow North citizens advice bureau also assisted another lone parent to four children who ranged from 12 years old to three years old. The bureau assisted in applying for health-related benefits for two of the children who had severe additional support needs. The parent had found himself in financial difficulty when his wife died and he gave up well-paid work to care for his children. In claiming universal credit, he was entitled to support for only two of his four children. Imagine experiencing such a bereavement or a relationship breakdown and facing such severe financial hardship under a UK benefit system, not by accident but by design. This is the reality of the two-shell limit in practice. It is also at the early years of a future that the UK Government is willing to put up with for how long we just don't know. Today, however, we can come together as a Scottish Parliament and unite against the current UK system, the two-shell cap and the rape clause. It must change, it must go, and it does not need the review of universal credit to tell us that. It needs a conscience, a political will and a determination to act. Our SAP Government has that conscience, determination and political will, hopefully at decision time, so will others. I am very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is, as always, a pleasure to follow Doris in respect of debates. We find ourselves here during challenge poverty week. I am disappointed that the SAP Government chose a motion so narrow that we could not have lauded the work that happens in challenge poverty week. I look to the various amendments to allow that discussion to happen because it is right to hold the Tory Government in Westminster to account for their failings, for their choices, for their decisions, but it is also right to look to the people of Scotland to see what we can do to challenge poverty. A week that was launched in 2013 that highlights the injustice of poverty in Scotland and to show the collective action based on justice and compassion can create solutions. I think that that is a fascinating message for this afternoon's debate. In this week in particular, the asks are where the people of Scotland value their communities, where we can be safe and secure in sustainable homes, where we can have enough to live in a decent dignified life, where you can travel where you need to go and where no one goes hungry. In those asks, generic as they are, they speak to the volume and the challenge that exists around poverty, both here in Scotland, across the United Kingdom, but also across the world. We look today in this debate from some members here to a very specific point and they want to labour that point. They are right to do so. It is a political decision, but I think that it is a missed opportunity in this week not to look to how answers can exist across our Scottish communities to improve the wellbeing of our children, of our young adults, of their new families, of working people who are working and in poverty, a level that we have seen exceed recently, and towards our older generations who need the care and support both of their communities but also of this Scottish Government and also of the Westminster Government so that they can have a dignified life moving forward. I would like to echo a comment that Miles Briggs made about the availability of childcare and the information that has become available today about the concern that the private sector has, not just of not being able to deliver a Scottish Government promise, but in doing so will lead to their going bankrupt and out of business, which will again cause huge problems to families who need that childcare to allow people, significantly, single-parent families, where again, of course, significantly it is women, to allow them to go to work. I would also like, in the short time that I have, to echo Ross McColl's speech about education education, of course a speech made at the University of Southampton, one of the great educational institutions back in May 2001 by Tony Blair. I welcome her acknowledgement that education is one of the long-term solutions but is not one of the long-term causes of poverty and the expectation that our schools, that our teachers, that the adults that support our young people can solve a problem like poverty is both disingenuous, it's unfair and actually is putting unacceptable pressures on a system that should be there to allow young people to develop, to mature so that they can take part in their future life and to echo a previous debate, where John Swinney intervened on me, to have the discussion about the responsibilities and the obligations that rest with parents and rest with schools and the difference between them. But turning more specifically to the debate that we have had this afternoon and I think it is right to echo Carol Mocken's comments about was there a need for this to be the politically strong debate that has been brought about because of the phrasing of the original motion and of course that is the choice of the government but to do so I think is disingenuous particularly in this week of all weeks and it's interesting Bob Dorris's contribution and when asked about the provision of the social security and he was right to talk about it being a developing and iterative process where people in Scotland hopefully will be dealt with more fairly more equitably let's face it just more kindly by a social security system but then to reflect back some of the other comments why can't that happen now why is it not happening now why can't it happen today and Bob Dorris is fully aware of why it can't happen today and I find it again disingenuous that there seems to be a clarion call particularly towards ourselves here and I compliment of course I am Bob Dorris I thank the member for giving way but I think he's conflating two opposite things the Scottish government for example started off with 10 pound Scottish child payment that's now 25 pounds that wasn't a bit processed that was a bit delivery abolishing the two child cap is not about process it's about delivery and UK Labour could do that immediately when elected can I compliment Bob Dorris on recognising the potential privilege that Labour has of being the government in Westminster imminently I deeply hope it would in fact be tomorrow however there is a reality in and that brings me to the part that I was going to go on to and I thank Bob Dorris for that intervention because there is something about a difference between a delivery and a promise and the fact remains that I hope we can all agree that the role of social security at one level is to provide a safety net that our communities and our individuals can be confident that they will not fall below and that should offer them the dignity that we have already talked about but to do that is not the two child cap to do that is the aberration that is universal credit it fails to recognise the complexity of individuals lives it was initially brought in to try and even out the complexity make a simple system that could then be delivered we have seen seen through experience that that has not happened under the Tory government at Westminster it has become almost as complex as the myriad of benefits that it sought to replace and we have said here today that Labour will look and review universal credit and we do so for the very reason that we had earlier in the discussion and I will bring my comments to an end deputy presiding officer over the parental transition fund a promise of the SNP government for £15 million a year an original idea that came through parents themselves and commented upon the Joseph Rowntree foundation only for them now to be told a year later they can't have it because we don't have the power so can I urge all governments to be incredibly careful about what they promise and make sure that they can deliver what they promise because people feeling betrayed upset and actually lowers the reputation of politicians governments and indeed parliaments I'm grateful deputy presiding officer thank you mr Whitfield and I now call collect Stevenson miss Stevenson thank you presiding officer it's challenge poverty week and today's theme is adequate incomes so it's very apt that we are having this debate the UK government must scrap the two child limit that is abhorrent punitive and undermines action to reduce child poverty in Scotland the two child cap likely affects around 1,000 children in my East Kilbride constituency and over 80,000 children in Scotland last year families in Scotland lost nearly 96 million compound and hardship during this Tory cost of living crisis and that is nothing short of disgraceful as engender pointed out this policy disproportionately affects women and is part of a Tory welfare system that entrenties women's poverty abolishing the two child limit could lift 20,000 children in Scotland out of poverty and research suggests this would cost around 1.3 billion across the whole of the UK a fraction of the 4.3 billion the Tory government drove off in alleged fraudulent Covid loans presiding officer the two child limit is also known as the rape clause the UK government website says that their exceptions to the two child limit including where a child was born as a result of non-conceptual conception women have to declare the name of their child and sign to confirm that they quote unquote believe that this applies to their son or daughter in Scotland over 2,500 women last year had to relive the trauma of sexual assault or coercive control just to put food on the table this is just one example of the cruel effects of the two child limit an abhorrent policy introduced by the Tories and one that the Labour Party will keep a recent study led by the University of York found that the two child limit is a poverty producing policy that has failed even to meet its own aims the researchers found families with three or more children that did not know about the two child cap because they were not on benefits at the time of the birth of course circumstances for anyone can change and you don't know what when you might have to rely on the social security safety net that safety net has been shrinking under the UK Tory government with limited powers over social security recent years the SNP in government has built a new system with dignity fairness and respect at its core the game changing Scottish child payment has been rolled out by the Scottish government providing £25 per week for every eligible child and it is estimated to lift around 50,000 children out of poverty in the next 12 months this policy highlights the stark difference between the cruelty of the Westminster system and the fairness of Scotland's social security system Presiding Officer I welcome the fact that Scottish Labour are favourable to the SNP calls to scrap the two child cap however that means nothing unfortunately since their Westminster colleagues have made it clear that a UK Labour government will keep it now considering the Tory amendment it's clear to me that they just don't get it they support austerity to manage public finances for future generations Presiding Officer there are austerity agendas and policies like the rate clause are harming those future generations leaving aside the immorality of their policy choices with nearly one in three children in the UK living in poverty that statement is a false economy child poverty affects future outcomes it leads to future tax receipt losses for government as well as additional social security spending in the long run c-pag estimates child poverty will cost the UK government at the very least 39.5 billion this year given that the Tories don't actually care about the reality of the public finances and they certainly don't care that their policies are creating poverty the Conservatives say they are the party of growth while the economy is on the verge of recession the only thing that they are growing is child poverty Presiding Officer I want to tackle and eradicate poverty and it isn't easy there are many factors at play however what is clear to me is that there are some easy choices that would actually relieve child poverty levels and help ensure no more children are dragged into poverty I'm really I'm sure I hope that you picked up from my speech that I'm really keen for us to make progress and really change child poverty so I'll be really keen to know what it is when the group meet what you discuss in terms of what more can be done here and now in terms of child poverty and how you make sure you do push the front benches on that in conclusion miss Stevenson sorry can I just ask you to clarify what you mean by the group could you elaborate on that thanks of course yeah on the group that you sit on the smp group Collector Stevenson I'm sorry yeah I'm going to move on actually I'm running out of time okay however for as long as Scotland has a mercy of right wing Tory and levered governments we will need to spend money mitigating the worst effects of Westminster decisions in a union where policies like the two child benefit cap or rape laws are allowed to exist there can be no doubt that the only way to protect families in Scotland is with independence thank you thank you and we move to winding up speeches and I call on Michael Marra up to six minutes please thank you uh Presiding Officer and thank you to all members who participated in this debate today Scottish Labour welcomes the opportunity to debate child poverty and broader poverty every opportunity because child poverty and there is I think unanimity across the chamber on this point is a moral affront the shape of our economy in scotland determines that a quarter of children in this country grow up in grinding daily poverty and that should be and I believe is an affront to every one of us those children are not saved by social mobility which has collapsed in scotland over recent decades it's still significantly more difficult for young people from the poorest of backgrounds to aspire to a better and a different life for them their families and their communities access to higher education particularly university courses that lead to the professions with the highest earnings remain closed to far too many and if we were to address that we have to build an economy that ensures greater equality instead of seeking to accelerate divisions but we should also reflect on the political context and that we're having this conversation today I think that the scenes that we've been watching from Manchester have been frankly to be expected you know standing room only for Liz trust trust a year on from crashing the UK economy whilst the rest is a sparsely attended Trump rally replete with conspiracy theories abound in all the speeches anti 15 minute neighborhoods in the control of in the control of populations coming from conservative ministers anti woke removing I believe the the woke from science one of the most ludicrous things produced I think by the the Tory party this week frankly it's anti reality the conservative party meeting in Manchester in recent days they are desperate to divide people by whatever means wherever they can I'm afraid and I don't share I don't spread the entirety of that to the smp far from it I have to say but there are things that they have been making up today there are things that have been entirely made up and I have to say Presiding Officer Scottish Labour remains opposed to the two child limit we've been abundantly clear on that our position is not changed my colleagues Paul O'Kane, Carol Mawkin and Martin Whitfield have set that out in some clear detail we are absolutely clear that universal credit does require fundamental reform it absolutely has to happen but we are in the fourth debate in two weeks from the smp specifically about the Labour Party not about their job of governing the country but specifically about the Labour Party and it's great on some levels as Mr Whitfield pointed out to Mr Doris that they have faith in the Labour Party's ability to form a government across the UK and bring change to the people of Scotland but I gently say to them in these debates just saying things about the Labour Party doesn't make them true it doesn't make them true so misrepresenting the position of the Labour Party in this area or any another will not change a single vote and rather glim tomorrow I can tell them that because our approach to politics is defined by the issue of poverty and child poverty Labour's record in this area stands up to scrutiny I'll take the member in a moment the scourge of child poverty does hold back this country it's a malignant legacy of collective moral failure and addressing it will be a defining purpose of any Labour Government at any time past or future yes in that vein taking that at face value if there was a policy presented to the Labour Party which would tomorrow lift 15,000 children out of poverty like scrapping the two child cap would the Labour Party do that rather than waiting for a review Michael Marraith? I can absolutely make the comment if this government wants to bring forward a policy tomorrow to scrap that cap if they want to lift 15,000 children out of poverty then we would happily back that position if that was what this government do but I would say to Cape Forbes it might want reminding Labour is not in power here or in Westminster and you are you could do it and you could do it now because actually there are various quotes across the debate Mr Stewart saying that he wanted it done we want an end to that immediately let's get rid of it now Maggie Chapman it could be done tomorrow but not by the Labour Party by the SNP you could mitigate it tomorrow should you took the option to do it no thank you Ms Forbes on this point you've had your chance and maybe come back to you later on yes well I think that's a fair comment it was a point that was answered I think so I would say this issue of timing the Labour Party cannot act on this issue now we do think there's a fundamental review of universal credit required that's absolutely no thank you but if we are to make real inroads into bringing child poverty back down again in this country we must tackle the scourge of in-work poverty I've heard nothing a very very little from the SNP benches today other than some warm words about Labour's position on the new deal for working people but we want to say that we would ban in government zero our contracts obviously bad news for the SNP's by-election strategy in that regard we would outlaw outlaw fire and rehire day one writes the sick paper enter leave an unfair dismissal and we'd ensure the minimum wage is a livable wage and the general secretary and mr stewart might want to listen to this because that is the program though thank you mr dorris that is the program that has been endorsed by the tuc calling those proposals transformative absolutely yes I recognise that the tuc have made positive comments around about some of these things now mr marra has just said that the Labour party will scrap scrap higher fire and rehire on day one why can they not do the same with a two child cap it's that simple if you can do it for one thing why not for this one in conclusion mike i'm afraid mr stewart will find that's not what he said why no no it is not he'll check you'll check the official day one writes to sick pay so when you go into a job you have day one writes check the official record and you'll find out what the policy of the Labour party is is as I have related it Presiding Officer and these benches and the government benches trying to misrepresent it on a weekly basis will do them no favours thank you and I now call on Jeremy Balfour up to seven minutes please thank you Presiding Officer it's always interesting to find out the Scottish Government bring forward a debate on social security I always find myself wondering what the topic of the debate will be will it be addressing the unaccepting process in times experienced by those who are trying to claim benefits for social security Scotland will it be how long it's taken to transfer the devolved benefits to social security Scotland and maybe thanking the DWP for agreeing to continue to ministry some benefits in the meantime or will it be simply the scholars government taking the time to apologise to all those who have been failed by the sambod attempt to distribute much needed support of course not Presiding Officer not at the moment because this government is not interested in looking at their own failings they would rather deflect than actually own up to the mess that they have made today Presiding Officer we have seen tactic number one from the green nationalist playbook shout about something the UK government is doing where sitting on their hands and not taking action that is well within their competency to take because the truth is that the scholars government if they really cared that deeply about the two child cap they could do something about it Kevin Stewart, Alex Cole-Hamilton, Kate Forbes, Marie McNair, Maggie Chapman, Bob Dorris, Collette Stevens here is the good news we have the power in this parliament to deal with the issue here and now and you have decided as a government to sit on your hands and do nothing about it except to slag off other governments this is not student politics this is school politics it is simply shouting at somebody else for taking no responsibility for it yourself they could decide to give these families more money if they wanted it to but they have chosen simply not to do it i will take oh my goodness so many i'll take miss Forbes i heard her first in the spirit of taking responsibility Jeremy Balfour is a member of the conservatives and according to campaigners the conservatives have plunged 15 000 children into poverty does he take responsibility for that well i think let's look at the number of children in 10 per accommodation that this government have put into trouble but actually i don't because like miss Forbes i was elected to this parliament to deal with the issues that we are responsible if i wanted to go to Westminster i would have gone there well according to the electorate but i chose to come here and the point is we have the powers but the front bench sit there and are simply happy to point fingers at other governments and doing nothing i need to put on the reality of governance governance is that there are choices that have to be made you have to decide what your priorities are and then make the difficult decisions the Scottish government if they want to lift the two child cap they should top up payment for bigger families finding the money from another budget such as health or education this is exactly the same process that you're asking the UK government no you're asking the UK government to do they must make decisions about where to spend their finite budget it is time for the SNP followed their own advice if it means that much to them myles bridgan is contributing i think helpfully pointed out the amount of money that the UK has spent over the last number of years particularly around covid in protecting the most vulnerable here in scotland ross mccall made the absolute right point that the Scottish government has failed on its promise around free school meals and neither john swinney nor kate fobs have given us a reason why that promise has been broken but actually what we should be debating today Presiding Officer is how do we get more people out of poverty martin whittfield was right in his contribution to talk about childcare and education but let's look at what this government is doing around getting more disabled people into employment the number of disabled people looking to get into employment is higher here in scotland than anywhere else in the UK let's look what we're doing in regard to education as we fall further and further down the leagues across the world let's look what we're doing to help people from our backgrounds into employment simply failing them we don't want i'm sure collectively to see any individual any family on benefits what we want to give people is opportunity to be able to work and to be able to provide their own families perhaps if the Scottish Government started debating the devolved powers we have in the Scottish Parliament more than talking cabinet secretary i'm grateful to the member for the opportunity to make the point to invite him to work with the Scottish Government if he wants us to do more with the powers that we have then help us to stop having to mitigate 127 million pound per year on the worst excesses of the UK Government 405 million on the Scottish child payment because the universal credit is absolutely pitiful in this country actually have an essential guarantee where we can help people because they can't always be in work and even if they are in work they will need support from the benefits system well so why don't the Scottish Conservatives work with us to see what we could do to stop us having to mitigate against the worst excesses of the UK Government and we could actually have that money to spend on employability in childcare and elsewhere in conclusion mr balker the issue is here cabinet secretary it's about political choices the UK government have made choices you have made choices your choice has been not to intervene to get rid of this that is a choice you have made and your government has made in conclusion Presiding Officer we all need to work to help those who are the most vulnerable in our society let's start talking more about what we can do with them this parliament and what this government can do and stop talking about other parliaments where we have not been elected to thank you thank you and i now call on Emma Roddick to wind up up to nine minutes minister thank you Presiding Officer let me be very clear from the outset the Scottish Government does not have the powers to scrap the two child cap Jeremy Balfour might want to check again which parliament he was elected to and where the powers sit because what members calling for mitigation are actually calling for is not for us to scrap the cap it is to allow people to go through that awful process to go through the rape clause and then come to us asking for the money that the UK government should have given them in the first place it is not a scrap and we do not have those powers if we were in charge of income benefits we wouldn't dream of denying vital support to children the powers to change this sit with the UK government and it is only the SNP and greens who are trying to do anything about that. Presiding Officer in a debate which is about whether children who did not choose to be born should be exempt from state support due to archaic judgments about people who need to rely on benefits and the number of siblings that that child has it is astounding that there has been so much disagreement the Scottish government has consistently called on the UK government to scrap this policy and support all children and it's a shame that others refuse to follow our example even when they agree completely with how awful the policy is. Yes certainly. I can confirm to the minister that Scottish Labour will be voting for the motion this evening on that basis and there's unanimity around it there's no word that we disagree in it. Minister. But the difference here is that Labour if they are successful in the next Westminster election will not be scrapping the two child cap they're talking about reviews they're talking about waiting and seeing and looking into whether this is a terrible policy which we all know it is and in a moment because as a social democrat as someone who wants to see child poverty eradicated I've been really disappointed with Scottish Labour so I can't imagine how their supporters feel I will give way to Carol. I want to understand what the conflict is you know we're supporting the motion today I've certainly have called on how do we work together and it just seems that we're placing conflict in a place where we should not be doing that. Minister. I think there's a policy in a place that it shouldn't be and whereas we would scrap it immediately Labour is refusing to go down that road and Labour had the opportunity to say that they would ditch this cap if they got into power and instead they're dancing around it presumably playing up to the gallery of conservative voters because what have we heard from Labour today we've heard we're not going to ditch this policy if we get in but why don't you mitigate us they don't support the powers being devolved to allow us to change the system but they're asking us to mitigate the conservative decision that their UK colleagues have decided to inherit and safeguard how brazen can you get I will give away to Paul O'Kane. Does the minister agree with me that universal credit is fundamentally flawed that it needs to be reformed in all of its parts and that's about more than one policy as a burden as a policy is it's about taking universal credit and making it a proper safety net for people who need it and also ensuring that work pays and pays well. Certainly have a review of universal credit but you could scrap this and have a review. You could do both. If even Scottish Labour has accepted that no matter who is in power down south it will fall to the government here to step in and provide a bit of sense and a bit of fairness in welfare policy it is perhaps time for them to stop shouting down every mention of independence because they are very close to getting the point that we've been making this whole time because in Paul O'Kane's words little changes here and there won't do it we need fundamental change the UK is even more broken than universal credit and we don't need a lengthy review to tell us that and I'm going to make progress thank you here in Scotland we do not choose to cap the number of kids that we think shouldn't be hungry the Scottish child payment is there for all eligible children no questions about how many siblings they have or whether they were a planned conception because that would be wrong and it's astounding to me that we're sitting debating that and hearing Miles Briggs say that this policy is about fairness there's no fairness in this policy the Conservatives and Miles Briggs in his comments about employment also seemed to echo George Osborne's comments when the policy was first launched when he claimed it would force families in receipt of benefits to make the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work and if he'd accepted one of my interventions earlier I would have asked him if he realises that 59% of the families affected by this cap are in work people who are in work are facing unprecedented challenges with budgeting thanks to his party crashing the economy and refusing to protect children from bearing the brunt of that and when we're talking about children I can't get my head around someone who looks at a hungry child and decides that we shouldn't do anything about it because of uninformed judgments about the personal decisions of the parents but regardless Nuffield foundation analysis shows that the policy has had little impact on birth rates which is just as well because we want to need more babies to be born in Scotland but it shows that whatever the Tories thought that they were doing with this policy it has not worked. Carole Mawkins assessment of the Tory amendment today was absolutely right it is a bizarre rewriting of history that completely fails to acknowledge that the future generations they're talking about carefully managing finances for are growing up in poverty now certainly. I have a question both to Ms Forbes and to Mr Sweeney, neither of them answered, and I would like for minister to answer. If we are so concerned about children growing up in poverty why is this cross government failed to deliver its promise in regard to free school meals being delivered by now? Why are we delayed if you're so concerned? That is a commitment that we're still absolutely behind. We will be rolling out universal free school meals. On the later points made by Carole Mawkins I would extend the invitation that the cabinet secretary was trying to offer for her or Scottish Labour spokespeople in the run-up to the budget to come along to meetings, tell us what they want us to do when they come to debates and say do more, give us some detail, tell us what it will cost and where the money should come from because we do always want to do more but we have to do the work and not just say because I'm sitting here part of a current government that spent over £400 million in this year on the Scottish child payment almost £3 billion on policies that tackle poverty while Labour is in opposition they've not even made it to government yet and they are prevaricating on ditching something as awful as the two child cap. Martin Whitfield was right to talk about what we can do here in Scotland there's plenty that we are doing and there's plenty more that we could do if we had the financial welfare or employment powers that we need or if we weren't having to constantly mitigate the worst of UK decisions. I will give way to Miles Briggs. Just before the debate, the cabinet secretary sent me a letter. At First Minister's questions, I raised when will all benefits be devolved to Scotland. The Scottish Government still don't have a date for that so why when the government are saying they're doing so much do they not manage to find the ways of delivering what they have here in the Scottish Parliament? This is a joint programme with the DWP so it's not entirely within our gift to state when powers are going to be devolved but certainly not all powers are planned to be devolved so it's maybe a question you should be turning around and asking the UK government about because when our mitigation bill is sitting at over a billion pounds and Scottish Labour keep coming to this chamber and asking us to add to that, when they won't put their money where their mouth is but instead abandon principles before they even take office, I suggest that there's a bigger problem at play and my colleagues behind me were right to keep pointing out that independence is needed if we want to tackle this issue without constantly fighting against the tide. Official figures released on 13 July revealed that a total of 2,590 women had to disclose details of rape to receive welfare support for a third or subsequent child. Rape crisis Scotland said that the two child policy for accessing child tax credits is cruel and forces families into poverty particularly during the cost of living crisis. Nobody should be forced to disclose sexual violence to access welfare and that clause lays bare the unfairness at the heart of this cap. If your policies are re-traumatising survivors you need to be very sure that that's necessary. People are being forced to prove rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse just to prove that their kids should be financially supported. For children conceived by other means it tells parents well that's your fault for getting pregnant as if circumstances don't change, as if assault and abuse are easy to prove and as if how they're conceived or born could ever justify a child growing up in poverty. The two child cap in telling women that they must be raped to be deserving of help ignores bodily autonomy, the possibility of contraception failing, religious views on the use of contraception or abortion, ignores the experiences of women. It is misogynistic at heart. It is also punishing children because their parents are on low incomes. It cannot be right to limit the financial support available to children and we don't need a review to tell us any of this. The two child cap is one of the most blatant punitive and plain wrong policies that I could ever remember. Labour needs to take a step back, listen to the lines that they are repeating and waking up to them because I can't believe that my colleagues over there who often speak very passionately about tackling poverty genuinely want to defend the indefensible. No exceptions could ever be enough. There should be no exception to our efforts to eradicate child poverty. Nobody deserves poverty.