AT a local election hustings for Shelter Scotland last week, the first question hit hard: would the Conservative candidate apologise for the “rape clause”?
The candidate, a law student, floundered and defended the UK Government policy of barring families from claiming child tax credits in respect of a third or subsequent child, but was clearly uncomfortable about the need for a statement from claimants in the event such a child was conceived from rape. But then he’d had little steer from his Scottish leader, although, under pressure, Ruth Davidson subsequently backed the policy.
The rape clause has become a rallying point for opposition to the UK Government’s benefit changes yet this seems to me to imply the tax credit “cap” is otherwise acceptable. But it is not. The refusal of this benefit in respect of families with three or more children is an attack on the poor with alarming hints of social engineering.
The policy appears to target people who recklessly enlarge their families despite relying on benefits. But as SNP MP Alison Thewliss, who has led opposition to the clause, points out, more than half of those families affected are actually in work but on low pay.
I saw Ms Thewliss facing criticism on Twitter after Conservative MSP Peter Chapman pointed out that the Scottish Government has the power to create new benefits now, and could provide funding for these families itself. This appeared to be said on the assumption that it would never happen, with Mr Chapman’s letter saying it was therefore “gross hypocrisy” to argue against the clause and tax credit cap.
But it seems to me that this is exactly what the Scottish Government should do. Regardless of whether the rape clause is somehow overturned or not, the SNP should make it plain that in Scotland you will not be punished for having a large family if you are poor. If that is seen as a problem, education and support are the answer, not a policy that harms the children themselves by impoverishing their parents.
Scottish ministers should use the powers they have to seize the moral high ground and expose this mean-minded, prejudiced policy for what it is.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here