Scottish government to end two-child benefit cap from March
The Scottish government will effectively scrap the two-child benefits cap north of the border from 3 March next year, ministers have announced. The UK-wide policy prevents parents from claiming universal credit or child tax credit for more than two children, with a few exemptions.The Scottish government will mitigate the cap by offering payments to affected families. Social Justice Secretary Shirley Anne Somerville said the move would help keep 20,000 children out of relative poverty.
The payments are due to start two months before next year's Scottish Parliament election.
What is the two-child benefits cap?
The two-child cap prevents most families from claiming means-tested benefits for any third or additional children born after April 2017.It was introduced by Conservative ministers as part of cost-cutting measures. It has been kept in place by Sir Keir Starmer's Labour administration. However, Labour ministers have indicated in recent months that they could scrap the policy.Somerville said the Scottish government could not wait for a decision at Westminster.The minister said payments would be delivered 15 months after the government announced it would mitigate the cap, which she said was the fastest a social security benefit in Scotland had ever been delivered.She added: "This builds upon the considerable action we have taken in Scotland, including delivering unparalleled financial support through our Scottish Child Payment, investing to clear school meal debts, and continuing to support almost 10,000 children by mitigating the UK government's benefit cap as fully as possible."
In its Budget announcement last year, the Scottish government vowed to provide payments to families affected by the policy by April 2026, or earlier if possible.It said it needed data and assistance from the UK government before it could introduce the payments.The Scottish Fiscal Commission has estimated that 43,000 children in Scotland will benefit from mitigation of the cap in 2026-27. It predicts this will cost £155m in that year, rising to almost £200m by 2029-30.The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that mitigating the policy would reduce relative child poverty in Scotland by 2.3 percentage points, equivalent to 23,000 children.The think tank described removing the cap as a "highly cost-effective policy", with an estimated annual cost of £4,500 per child lifted out of poverty.
'Real hardship'
However, it has also warned mitigation could weaken incentives to work because some of the lowest-paid workers could earn more on welfare than in employment.The government's announcement was welcomed the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland.Director John Dickie said: "It is absolutely right that the Scottish government acts to effectively scrap the UK government's two-child benefit limit in Scotland. "Families affected, most of whom are working, are facing real hardship and the sooner these payments can be made the better."He also called on the UK government to scrap the policy "as a matter of utmost urgency". Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously said he would consider "all options" to tackle child poverty.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Scottish city to charge visitors in bid to fund public services
Glasgow has approved a new tourist tax, becoming the second Scottish city to implement such a levy after Edinburgh. The visitor levy will charge tourists an additional five per cent on their accommodation bills, estimated to average £4.83 per night. The tax is projected to generate £16 million annually, with funds allocated to Glasgow's infrastructure projects, events, and public services. Following an 18-month implementation phase required by national legislation, the levy is expected to be rolled out by January 2027 at the earliest. The decision received cross-party support from the SNP, Labour, Greens, and Conservatives, following a public consultation.
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
SNP loses its shine with Fergus Ewing exit
The Ewings, all three of them – Winnie, her daughter Annabelle and, last but not least, her son Fergus – have always added lustre to the SNP and the cause of independence. The late Winnie, Madam Ecosse, all but invented it, at least in the modern era, by winning the Hamilton by-election in 1967 and then becoming the first presiding officer of the reformed Scottish Parliament in 1999. Her daughter has been a minister in several departments, and became a deputy presiding officer of the Holyrood Parliament, and Fergus became – well, just Fergus. He was always his own man, the epitome of the bloke who goes his own way, no matter what. He has now announced that he's had it with the nit-picking, daft policy-loving comrades who even tried to have him chucked out of the party he's spent all of his adult life supporting. And he's going his own way. I'll admit I've never agreed with his continued support for independence, a policy that would have beggared his country. But he was a man of principle who accepted that politicians of different stripes had principles, too. And while they could be challenged, they should not be insulted. Above all, he saw his first duty was to his Highland constituents. He put their need for decent, safe roads at the top of his agenda – especially the dualling of the A9, widely known as Britain's 'killer road' because of crashes. And he didn't want to see fishing communities devastated by supposed green policies aimed at protecting the environment, no matter the human cost. If there was one issue that alienated Fergus Ewing more than most from the SNP, it was Nicola Sturgeon's ill-fated coalition with the ultra-left Scottish Greens. He fought their policies tooth and nail, and rightly declared that most of them were opposed by a majority of the electorate. Nowhere was this more evident than in the Sturgeon/Scottish Greens plan to rewrite society's views on gender. It was a battle in which Ewing was ultimately on the winning side. I'm certain that he has not taken this decision to stand as an independent in next May's Scottish Parliament election lightly. After all, he will almost certainly be standing against an SNP candidate and even at this distance, the arithmetic looks like being very tight. His long-time party will throw everything at him to keep 'his' Inverness and Nairn seat, which they've always held. I'll probably be wrong – I usually am with predictions – but my tenner is on Fergus Ewing holding on against the odds.
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Assisted dying Bill set to become law
Assisted dying is set to be legalised in England and Wales after a historic vote described as 'the most fateful' of this Parliament. MPs voted 314 to 291 in favour of allowing adults with a terminal illness and less than six months left to live to receive medical assistance to end their lives. Opponents of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill said the vote was ' on a knife-edge ' but the legislation was voted through by a majority of 23. Assisted dying is now on course to be available to eligible patients by 2029, but it remains unclear whether it will be provided as part of the NHS or an additional system will be created. Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the Bill, said her legislation would 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo and offer a compassionate and safe choice '. The controversial legislation has been passed by the Commons despite opposition from the Royal Colleges of Physicians, Psychiatrists and Pathologists. Critical MPs said it lacked sufficient safeguards to protect the vulnerable and that it would transform the relationship between individual and state. Concerns were also raised about the precarious state of the palliative care system, which could deprive eligible adults of an adequate choice at the end of life. MPs from each political party gave emotive and passionate speeches on both sides of the debate, with several citing their personal experiences with the deaths of loved ones. Diane Abbott, a veteran Labour MP, said: 'This may be the most fateful Bill that we discuss in this Parliament. It is literally a matter of life and death.' She said she opposed the legislation on behalf of the 'voiceless', adding: 'What could be more unjust than to lose your life to appallingly drafted legislation?' Kit Malthouse, a Tory MP and supporter of the Bill, responded by saying that he wanted to give a voice to dying people 'not because they want to be rescued, but because time and time again, they're begging us for mercy'. The former Cabinet minister added: 'We honour life by giving it meaning and power. And the one thing that dying people ask for in their agonising final moments is control over the disease that is destroying them.' Sir James Cleverly, who spoke against the Bill, said that the legislation would fundamentally change the relationship between doctor and patient. 'We will introduce, perhaps only a small, but a permanent question mark in the minds of every patient, particularly a patient who is discussing a serious illness or perhaps a terminal diagnosis. 'What is this medical profession expecting of me, what are they thinking?'' Tom Tugendhat, the former security minister, cautioned his Parliamentary colleagues to pay attention to the precise wording of the Bill and its impact on society's most vulnerable. 'The truth is, this is the last time we're going to talk about it. This is the last time we're going to have actual authority over these words,' he said. Mr Tugendhat warned that when the first 18 or 19-year-old applies for an assisted death, ' it will be we who made that decision '. 'It will be on our consciences, and it will be a decision that has fundamentally changed the relationship between the individual and the state, in a way that can never be reversed,' he said. Eligible patients will be able to have an assisted death if they get the approval of two doctors and an assisted dying panel, made up of a psychiatrist, social worker and a legal expert. This was added to the Bill after a Second Reading in the Commons in November, after concerns were raised about the original proposal to have a High Court judge sign off each application. Sir James also cited the concerns raised by a number of professional bodies that will be involved in the provision of assisted dying. 'When people upon whom we rely to deliver this say they are not ready and they don't feel they will be ready, they don't have enough people, they don't have enough capacity, they will have to take resource from current provisions to move across to this provision, which will be driven by a statutory requirement and a locked in commencement date, we should listen.' Vicky Foxcroft, a Labour MP who served as a shadow minister for disabled people, said that in the Bill's development, 'the absence of disabled people's voices has been astonishing'. Whereas Dr Peter Prinsley said: 'As a young doctor, I found the measures that we're debating today completely unconscionable, but now I'm an old doctor, I feel sure this is an essential change.' He added: 'There is an absolute sanctity of human life, but we are not dealing with life or death, rather death or death. For there is also a sanctity of human dignity and fundamental to that is surely choice. Who are we to deny that?'
