Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I welcome the following officials: from the Law Centre, we are joined by Sarah Corrigan, director of legal services and engagement; and Holly Knox, policy and community engagement officer; and from the Cliff Edge Coalition/Women's Support Network, we are joined by Siobhán Harding, research and policy officer.

You are no strangers to the Committee, and we have met you in relation to a lot of our business. I appreciate your assistance with the legislative consent memorandum (LCM). It is going to be a much tighter session for members. When we have you in front of us, we would like to do much more, but time will not allow it. Sarah, will you make some opening remarks?

Ms Sarah Corrigan (Law Centre Northern Ireland): Chair, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present evidence on the crucial matter of the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill and the associated LCM. I am the director of legal services and engagement with the Law Centre NI. This morning, I am joined by my colleague Holly Knox, who is a policy and engagement officer at the Law Centre, and Siobhán Harding, who is a policy officer for the Women's Support Network. We are all members of the Cliff Edge Coalition working group, and the Committee is familiar with that group.

This morning, we are wearing two hats. To remind people about the work of the Cliff Edge Coalition: it is an alliance of 117 members, and we have been established since 2018. During that time, we have campaigned for strengthened and supported welfare reform and mitigations. There have been a number of successes, such as the bedroom tax mitigations and closing the loopholes, and it now looks like we are on the precipice of securing another reform that we have campaigned for. We echo the words of Kevin Higgins from Advice NI and thank the Assembly and the Committee for their work on this. We are in a unique position in Northern Ireland, and it has gone a long way to preventing the levels of poverty that could have happened here.

This morning, our evidence will outline the fact that we unequivocally welcome this and believe that consent should be granted. Our role is, with a hint of caution, that there are certain practical considerations that we need to be mindful of. Largely, they touch on how we communicate this. It sounds so simple. We are a regional support organisation, and we work closely with the front line. We work in the areas of official errors and overpayments, and we have seen all those things before. Frustratingly, we see how better communication could have stopped needless stress and poverty. This is our opportunity to get ahead of some of those issues and highlight them to the Committee. We have touched on transitional protection before. I hope that it goes without saying, but I will say again, that the Law Centre and the Cliff Edge Coalition are keen to engage continuously with the Committee or the Assembly in whatever way is needed, because some of this is very in the day-to-day language, and it is good that we get it right.

I will briefly talk about two of our recommendations and then pass to my colleague Holly, who will work through some of the areas of caution. Siobhán will then talk a little bit about the Cliff Edge Coalition and the gendered impact of the removal of the policy.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): It will have to be quite brief.

Ms Corrigan: Yes. The first recommendation is that we ask the Committee to grant consent. You have our stats in the brief, so I will not go through them. Under the third recommendation — Holly will cover number two — it would be remiss of me not to mention the fact that the advice sector is under extreme pressure. There is a review of advice services happening at the moment. Without the advice sector, who would be there to assist with implementation, to pick up official errors or to deal with people who face digital exclusion and with vulnerable clients? We need a fully resourced and engaged advice sector.

I will pass to my colleague Holly, who will talk the Committee through some of the areas of caution that it should be mindful of.

Ms Holly Knox (Law Centre Northern Ireland): Good afternoon. I am the policy and community engagement officer at the Law Centre, and I work in our social security team. I thank you for the opportunity to provide evidence today, and I also thank the Committee and our elected representatives for your support in our campaign to remove the two-child limit over the past number of years.

Law Centre NI warmly welcomes the critical intervention to remove the two-child limit. We are really clear that we want to see that rolled out in a sustainable, efficient and successful way. It is critical that the implementation be successful, because it needs to have a positive impact on those who are most in need. In our second recommendation, which is further outlined in our briefing, we ask that the NI Assembly and the Department for Communities robustly plan for the effective implementation of the removal of the two-child limit. We have identified practical considerations that must be addressed. We contend that the social security system must be adequately resourced and accessible and must be available to those who are most in need. To ensure that barriers to the social security system are removed and that any potential errors resulting from the policy's removal are mitigated, there are several logistical matters to bring to your attention.

First, I highlight considerations surrounding timing and commencement in Northern Ireland. We are seeking assurance that the measure will be applied no later than 6 April to ensure parity with Great Britain. That needs to be communicated to universal credit (UC) claimants and to the advice sector at the earliest opportunity. Secondly, we have identified practical matters regarding the roll-out that we ask the Committee to be mindful of in order to ensure that there is a seamless roll-out on commencement of the legislation. Those include how an additional child element will be awarded to a universal credit claim. Will it be applied automatically, or is a new application to be made? Consideration must also be given to the interaction of the two-child limit and a claimant's transitional protection and assessment period.

Whilst the removal of the two-child limit is a positive intervention, we are clear that it cannot be viewed as a remedy for wider concerns about the social security system. There should be no quiet rolling back of existing schemes such as welfare mitigations or discretionary support. We also respectfully recommend that consideration be given to the interaction of the benefit cap and the removal of the two-child limit. Those are vital protections that provide critical support to those who are most in need.

As conveners of the Cliff Edge Coalition, we highlight our remaining asks: resolve the five-week wait for universal credit; and provide support to private renters affected by the local housing allowance. All that needs to be considered in the wider context of deepening poverty across Northern Ireland, because it causes additional pressure on families in the midst of financial hardship.

Finally, I highlight equality impacts specific to Northern Ireland that relate to gender and disability, which my colleague Siobhán will touch on shortly. These are critical, due to the disproportionate impact that the two-child limit has had on households in Northern Ireland. Our statistics, which are included in our brief, further highlight that. They indicate that due consideration must be given to universal credit claimants who are female and to those who are disabled, because they are more likely to have been impacted on by the two-child limit. There must be post-implementation monitoring mechanisms to ensure that there is no regression of human rights for people living in Northern Ireland.

We believe that it is important to address those practical considerations in order to ensure that the removal of the two-child limit will effectively support children and families across Northern Ireland from the time of its implementation. I will pass to my colleague Siobhán.

Ms Siobhán Harding (Cliff Edge Coalition): Thank you, Chair and Committee members. As Sarah and Holly have said, I am speaking to you as a member of the Cliff Edge Coalition working group, which includes over 100 organisations. We have long campaigned for the scrapping of the two-child limit. I pay tribute to the coalition members, all those from across the community and voluntary sector, and the others who have done so much over many years to raise awareness of the impact of this poverty-inducing policy. It is, undoubtedly, that pressure that has led to its being scrapped.

Most important to put on record is how happy we are to see the end of the two-child limit for the many women, children and families who have been so impacted on by it. It has caused poverty, distress, cold and hunger for so many families. Scrapping the policy will not only help those families but will put money back into local economies, where it is spent and not saved. It is also important to note that the two-child limit is a gendered policy that disproportionately impacts on women, who make up the majority of single parents. In Northern Ireland, 92% of single parents are women. Women also bear the brunt of increased poverty and caregiving responsibilities, which makes them more likely to have to rely on social security benefits.

Scrapping the two-child limit was the right thing to do. To quote the Chancellor when she made the announcement:

Scrapping the two-child limit is an important first step in addressing child poverty and an important investment in children, but it should just be the start. It is vital to continue that investment in children, and we need to see policies that invest in our children from local government as well.

I will bring you the voice of lived experience. I spoke to Sarah, a mother of six, about the impact of the two-child limit. Her children are aged between one and 15, and she has only received help for her two oldest children through universal credit. It is worth bearing in mind that that means a loss of over £3,500 per child subject to the limit per year. That means that Sarah struggles with the cost of essentials, particularly food and gas heating, and she regularly has to choose between paying for heat or food. She said:

She struggles with the cost of food, particularly healthy food, and she has to use a food bank every week. She said that her children love fruit, but it costs an absolute fortune. She said:

When we talked about the two-child limit being scrapped, she said:

She told me that, if it was scrapped, it would make a massive difference to her family's life. She said:

For herself, Sarah said that it would relieve some of the anxiety that she feels. She said:

Finally, I will reinforce a point that Kevin Higgins made about the interaction with benefit cap mitigation. We want families to enjoy the full benefits of the removal of the two-child limit. It is important, and the Assembly should be commended for introducing those important mitigations. It is currently in place until March 2028, and it is part of our campaign to see it extended so that that important protection remains. As Kevin said, 100% of the families impacted on by the benefit cap have children, and it is an important part of addressing child poverty. I am also panicked, like Kevin, by the Minister's comments on discretionary support, and I am concerned about anything that gives with one hand and takes away with the other.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you. That is really useful, and I share the concern. It is clearly something that the Committee will want to pick up on. I have a brief question about Holly's evidence, and it was also raised by Kevin. Are you directly in touch with the Department to advise officials about the practical matters and the communication?

Ms Knox: The Law Centre works closely with the Department. When we see an issue, we are thankful for that good relationship, and it means that we can bring it to the Department’s attention. Some of the communication issues have been further outlined in our brief. Social security matters are very complex, and it is important that the information is communicated to claimants so it does not instil further fear, anxiety, worry or stress, but also that it is communicated efficiently to the advice sector. Our legal team takes really complex calls and cases every day, as I know that many other front-line organisations do. It is really important that the Department communicate that to us all at the earliest opportunity.

Ms Corrigan: It is really valid to ask whether we have good communication with the Department. We do, and we are grateful for that. I do not want the Committee to be in any doubt about what is really important, which is tailored communication about transitional protection. We do not want to see an influx of errors in payment. The devastation that that causes cannot be overestimated, especially given appeal timescales. Some people will see this in the press and think, "This is great. I am going to have x amount extra in my pocket". In reality, for many people that might not be the case, because they already receive transitional protection. They already have some kind of protection against the two-child limit. For some people, it will mean that they will have extra money and will be able to plan for groceries, Easter and those things, but that will not be the case for everybody. It is about tailored communication. It is good that we have communication with the Department, but that connection with those claimants is essential. If we can help to facilitate that, we will.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Are there any other questions, members, on that piece?

Ms Mulholland: I have loads, but I do not think that we have time for them, so I will follow up with them.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): The information in your briefing is very useful as well.

Ms Corrigan: There is a calculation at the very back that explains that, for some people, there is an impact and, for others, there is not.

Ms Mulholland: Your briefing was fantastic, so, as always, thank you very much.

Ms K Armstrong: If we got Westminster to make a slight amendment to its Bill to have the removal of the two-child limit disregarded from transitional protection, that would sort this out, would it not?

Ms Corrigan: I do not know whether it is as clear-cut as that.

Ms Knox: We can certainly check the complexities with our legal team. It would certainly make a big difference. It depends on all the different elements that are added in to the UC claim, but it would make a substantial difference.

Ms Corrigan: It would make a difference, but it would not necessarily be a blanket solution. We can definitely come back to you on that.

Ms Knox: We will provide some examples, if that is helpful, too.

Ms K Armstrong: That would be very helpful. Thank you.

Mr Durkan: I thank the team for its tireless and focused work on tackling this issue, which has been a direct driver of poverty. It is imperative that we ensure that this silver lining does not have a cloud. On the transitional payment stuff, I see clearly how the interaction between the removal of the two-child limit and the communication piece is very important, particularly because of the fact that, once it is eroded, it cannot be reinstated. I have been asking questions recently about transitional protection payments. It appears that the Department does not retain, or at least does not divulge, the reasons for the erosion of that payment. Is that an issue that you have come across?

Ms Knox: There could be some instances in which transitional protection will naturally erode, such as if there is a change in circumstance. A claim could move from a couple to a single claim, or there could be a change around the administrative earnings threshold. It is a really complex matter. As Sarah said, it is really good when it is communicated to us clearly, but I always think about a claimant who maybe receives a letter that uses words like "transitional protection child element". It is a page full of numbers. We need to make sure that communication is really precise and clear and in an accessible language and format for those claimants.

Ms Corrigan: I wonder whether it would be helpful if we were to set out a number of examples to clarify — to your point, Kellie — what our ask would be in the event that an amendment were sought. We can look at that and perhaps email some information to the Committee.

Mr Durkan: Circumstances can change both ways. Sometimes, post erosion, there is a drastic depletion or fall in someone's earnings. They might go on to maternity pay or whatever, and then it is gone.

Ms Knox: Absolutely. Transitional protection has provided a really good protection for claimants, but it is just that interaction and how changes in circumstances are going to impact on that further.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, as ever, Siobhán, Holly and Sarah, for the really good information and the good briefing that you supplied.