John Park, Living Wage (Scotland Bill) Consultation: CHILDREN 1ST response About CHILDREN 1ST For over

125 years CHILDREN 1 ST has been working to build a brighter future for Scotland's vulnerable children and families. We listen, we support and we take action by delivering services in homes and communities across Scotland. We work to safeguard children and young people, to support them within their families and to help them recover from abuse, neglect and violence. We also speak out for children's rights and campaign to change attitudes. Formerly known as the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (RSSPCC), we provide 46 local services across Scotland and four national services, including ParentLine Scotland which provided advice and information to over 3000 callers last year, most of them parents and carers. The Department of Work and Pensions has funded ParentLine Scotland to provide information and support on financial inclusion to caller. We also provide workshops on financial inclusion to kinship carers through the national kinship care service. Consistently, one of the main reasons people contact Scotlands free and confidential helpline is when they are experiencing issues related to family relationships and contact and residence. Often, financial issues are interlinked. We concur with the points made in the response made by the Coalition of Care Providers Scotland (CCPS), and our comments below aim to complement their consultation response. Additionally, we are surveying parents and carers who use our services to ascertain their views on the living wage and to find out if it would benefit them. We will share the findings to inform development of the bill. QUESTION 1: Do you support the general aims of the proposed Bill? (as outlined in paragraphs 32 to 39 above). Please indicate yes/no/undecided and explain the reasons for your response. Yes. CHILDREN 1ST fully supportive of the aim to increase the number of workers in Scotland who are paid the Living Wage, both through the public sector procurement process and by promoting the Living Wage so as to encourage employers in all sectors to adopt it. Our experience tells us that this members bill, if passed improve the lives of many vulnerable children and young people in Scotland, enabling their families to raise their income and living standards.

CHILDREN 1ST believes that this bill could make a real financial difference to many parents and lone parents who suffer in work poverty, and thereby help improve living conditions for many children and families in Scotland. CHILDREN 1ST believe that this bill, along with other measures such as more flexible and affordable childcare, could pay an important role in tackling child poverty across Scotland. Also, in line with CCPS, we believe that Scottish and UK government support for the living wage should be extended to the whole public sector workforce. Using procurement in relation to the living wage in this way will level the playing field for all bidders and service providers, and in turn (especially in relation to care and support services/contracts), it can work to ensure good quality care and support for service users themselves. QUESTION 2: Do you envisage any issues for public sector bodies when including the Living Wage as a contract performance condition of a contract? Please explain the reasons for your answer. Like CCPS, we envisage a potential risk of public bodies requiring contractors to pay the living wage within existing contract provisions, meaning contractors will have to find the resources for the Living Wage from elsewhere in their resources and available budgets. This could result in cuts to other employment conditions for staff. We agree with CCPS that there is a crucial link between a public body requiring a contractor to pay the Living Wage, and them paying a contract price which is sufficient to enable a service provider to do so without impacting negatively on other employment benefits (e.g. sick pay, holiday pay, and training budgets) and/or other contractual requirements. QUESTION 3: What do you consider will be the advantages or disadvantages for employers and employees if public sector performance clauses stipulate the payment of the Living Wage? Please see our response to Q1. CHILDREN 1ST supports this proposed bill, as it will help level the playing field for all employers who bid for public sector contracts. We envisage advantages for employees who will benefit from the reduction of in-work poverty, and for some, the reduced reliance of in-work benefits. QUESTION 4: Which public sector bodies should use contract performance clauses to deliver the Living Wage? Please include the reasons for your choice. All public sector bodies and those with whom the public sector contacts to provide services should be included in the definition.

QUESTION 5: Which bodies should be mandatory consultees? Please include the reasons for your choice. QUESTION 6: What information must be included in the Scottish Ministers report to the Scottish Parliament? Please explain the reasons for your answer. QUESTION 7: What is your assessment of the likely financial implications of the proposed Bill to you or your organisation; if possible please provide evidence to support your view? What (if any) other significant financial implications are likely to arise? CHILDREN 1ST pays all staff well over the national minimum wage and the vast majority of its staff over the Living Wage. We are exploring how we might ensure that all employees earn above the Living Wage level. Therefore, the current implications for our organisation are minimal. However, this might change should the Living Wage level continue to rise at a rate beyond current pay increases. Like many voluntary organisations and indeed, public sector bodies, financial constraints have put pressure on our ability to make annual pay rises which reflect the rise in living costs. Should this situation continue, the adoption of a Living Wage would have considerable financial impact on our organisation. QUESTION 8: Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative implications for equality? If it is likely to have a substantial negative implication, how might this be minimised or avoided? Low pay affects significantly more women than men in Scotland. For example the Poverty Alliance Briefing on Low Pay in Scotland, issued in May 2010, showed that women represent two thirds of all low paid workers in Scotland (paid less than 7 an hour). As the majority of lone parent households are headed by women, the predominance of low pay amongst female workers in Scotland is one of the most significant factors in child poverty. We envisage that this bill could have a very positive impact on these families who suffer from inwork poverty, if measures to provide flexible and more affordable childcare are also put in place. Moreover, in terms of equality and childrens rights, Article 27 of the United Nations Charter of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) states that all children have a right to an adequate standard of living, and to have their basic needs met. Many children in Scotland are affected by parental in-work poverty, and so do not have these rights. The introduction of the Living Wage could help improve living standards for many families, and so too could help these children realise their rights.

QUESTION 9: Do you have any other comments on or suggestions relevant to the proposal?

If you have any questions about this response or would like any further information please contact CHILDREN 1STs policy team. CHILDREN 1ST Policy Team 83 Whitehouse Loan Edinburgh EH9 1AT Tel: 0131 446 3979 or 2310 Email: policy@children1st.org.uk