Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful to him for making that point in this House. It is important to remember, notwithstanding the tough economic climate, that we on the Conservative Benches have looked after the pensioners. We have given them security and the protection that they need, and I can assure the House that they will continue to have that protection with the triple lock.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Does the Minister understand that a great number of women who were born in the 1950s feel that the Government did not adequately inform them not only about the changes to the state pension age affecting their retirement, but about the speeding up of that process? Will he look again at that basic unfairness for a group of women who have paid in but who are getting nothing out?

[Mr Vara]

May I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the original increase in ages was started under a Labour Government? We have relaunched the campaign to ensure that the target group of people—those who are within 10 years of retirement from April 2016—take an active role in trying to find out how they will benefit under the new state pension.

DWP Data

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

We do not place our interpretation on data that my Department publishes, because we are bound by the UK Statistics Authority when it comes to how they are presented. As I have said, these data will be published. Let me also reiterate once again that ours is one of the most transparent Governments ever, in contrast to the hon. Gentleman’s Government.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The Minister has said that the data will be robust, but I simply do not accept the Government’s narrative that some people in receipt of employment and support allowance or incapacity benefit are not ill, because those are good epidemiological considerations when it comes to public health indicators. Why will the Minister not do the decent thing and publish the data in full today?

[Priti Patel]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was disappointed by my response, but the data will be published. He should remember, when he criticises these schemes, that his Government set them up prior to 2010, and that it is we who are reforming the mess that we inherited.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

I will give way in a moment. Universal credit is a reform which, even though it is running four years late, we still want to succeed.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Was my right hon. Friend as shocked as I was at the response of the Secretary of State to his intervention in respect of disabled people, especially those who have terminal illnesses as well—cancer and Parkinson’s disease were two of the examples that he used? The Secretary of State does not seem to understand the implications of the changes to the employment and support allowance for these very vulnerable people at a very worrying time in their lives.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which I wanted to return to. The implication of what the Secretary of State said is that, for example, people with Parkinson’s disease or multiple sclerosis should be in the support group, not in the work-related activity group. The Secretary of State needs to follow that through.

Because we support some measures in the Bill, oppose others and want to change yet others to make them workable, we ask the House to support the reasoned amendment in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I want to make some progress, but I will give way again in a minute. [Interruption.] I will give way now to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) if he wants to intervene. [Interruption.] He complains that I am not giving way, but he does not want to intervene.

We will not support self-defeating false economies in the Government’s approach to social security. We do not support an approach that will leave more than 3 million working families poorer, and in turn mean that the poorest children are more likely to grow up into poor adults, which will cost society far more in the longer run.

The Chancellor and Ministers on the Front Bench have a track record when it comes to false economies, particularly during the last Parliament. They scale back nurse training, and then spend a fortune hiring nurses from private agencies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) knows. They cancel major road schemes, such as the one involving the A14, and then revive them later on at vast expense. They pay redundancy to senior officials at the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office, and then rehire them at higher cost. They restrain local councils from tackling fraud in housing benefit, and then the level of overpayments escalates to £1.5 billion. They reduce the number of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff so that phone calls go unanswered from businesses that need to get through, and then are surprised when the tax gap gets wider and revenues go uncollected. And we have a Chancellor with the gall to boast of a northern powerhouse while simultaneously pulling the plug on the electrification of major commuter rail lines.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will understand the dismay of many across Greater Manchester and the wider northern regions, not just at the pause in the electrification of the line between Manchester and Leeds—and the implications that will have for rolling stock in the north of England—but at the insult yesterday when we were told that we will get an Oyster-style piece of plastic to use on our Pacer trains.

[Chris Leslie]

It has been said many times, but the powerhouse has become a power cut. As time goes on, many—not just in the north but in the midlands—will see through the rhetoric to the reality that they are experiencing.

The Government are undercutting, not supporting, a productive economy. It says everything about the Chancellor that the impact of his Budget has been to worsen the outlook for productivity in our economy over the rest of this Parliament rather than to improve it. The OBR has done the calculations and its prediction is on page 77 of its report. Its conclusion is stark. The Opposition know that more productive businesses, and a more productive economy, are the key to a virtuous circle of higher growth, higher living standards and, as a consequence, more effective deficit reduction. For the Conservatives, productivity springs magically from thin air, but for us it is decent infrastructure and decent public services that can make all the difference to business success.

In his March Budget, the Chancellor did not even mention productivity, so perhaps we should be glad that he at least found time to mention it yesterday, even if we are still waiting for the much trumpeted productivity plan. I gather that it will be published on Friday, although the House is not actually sitting that day so we will not be able to scrutinise the details. Under this Chancellor, UK productivity has, in the words of the Office for National Statistics, undergone a period of “unprecedented” stagnation.

Scotland Bill

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my preamble, as he puts it, because I was talking about the underlying problems in the welfare system. They include: a lack of affordable social housing, which pushes people into the more expensive private rented sector, which pushes up the housing benefit bill; a lack of higher pay, which pushes up the benefit bill; and a lack of skills and opportunities to progress in the workplace and increase productivity, which also pushes up the welfare bill. Indeed, in Business, Innovation and Skills questions this morning, the Business Secretary said that the UK had a problem with productivity and that it had to be resolved. If we could resolve those three underlying problems in the welfare system, we might be in with a fighting chance of making life better for people in this country and of bringing the welfare bill down.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that, although the baseline will always be the UK welfare system, lifting some of the restrictions that the Bill would place on the Scottish Parliament would allow it to build on the provisions?

[Ian Murray]

I shall come on to that. Indeed, new clause 31, which SNP Members have signed, too, incidentally, would essentially give the Scottish Parliament full power to introduce new benefits in all devolved areas and to top up any benefits in reserved areas. Anybody who wished to put together a manifesto for a Scottish parliamentary election would have to determine what they would do with the welfare system and would consequently have to pay for that, but the important principle is that the UK welfare state would remain integral and the Scottish Parliament, as an autonomous and powerful Parliament, would be able to make its own decisions to reflect the interests of the Scottish people.

The exact amount of money that is spent and who spends it are not the key concerns of the Bill, which is about ensuring that powers are exercised where they most benefit the people of Scotland. The Labour party was the architect of the welfare state—the system of social insurance that covers every citizen, regardless of income, from the cradle to the grave and that is perhaps one of our greatest achievements and the purest expression of our common values and shared purpose. As the architect of the modern welfare state, the Labour party will do everything it can to ensure that it serves the needs of people not just across the UK but, crucially in terms of this Bill, in Scotland. That is why we have sought to be the driving force in this section of the Bill, tabling a total of 21 amendments and new clauses, more than any other party, to ensure that the Smith agreement is not only delivered consistently in spirit and in substance but that the Bill goes much further in welfare provisions.

Each and every one of the amendments has a purpose: to improve the lives of families in Scotland while maintaining the fundamental principles of the underpinning of the UK welfare state. May I take the opportunity to thank all the charities and voluntary sector organisations from across Scotland who have assisted me in this task? They do valuable work day to day with those who are most in need, and we should thank them every single day for what they achieve. Without them, society would not operate in Scotland and across the UK. To put it simply, we should all thank them.

I am glad that the SNP has seen fit to support a number of the amendments. We will work closely together to ensure that we can deliver them. In the same spirit of inter-party co-operation and consensus, I have signed a number of the SNP’s amendments that attempt to improve the Bill. Although this is a fairly technical exercise and welfare is hugely complicated, I want to make it clear that fundamentally our amendments will ensure, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), that the Scottish Parliament has the unrestricted power to create any new benefits in areas that are devolved, in addition to the guarantees of the UK benefits and pension system, as well as the power to top up any benefits that remain reserved in this Parliament. That wide-ranging provision effectively gives the Scottish Parliament the power to design its own welfare system in its entirety. However, unlike others, we are determined to ensure that the welfare state remains an integrated and UK-wide system of social security to allow for the continued pooling and sharing of risks and of resources.

We will also actively pursue our policy of double devolution by devolving as many powers as possible to local communities so that they can be tailored to local needs and circumstance, starting with the Work programme, Work Choice and Access to Work, which we will debate later. Subsidiarity should be at the heart of the Scottish Parliament to ensure that the public are engaged and that there is full community spirit in designing the system that is best for community needs.

Before I speak about Labour’s specific amendments, I want to place on record my disappointment at the comments made by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) during yesterday’s debate. He described the proposals in the Smith agreement as “miserable”, and I think that that is quite wrong in the context of this Bill. We should be using this opportunity to improve on the provisions in front of us and to make the system better in Scotland. The Secretary of State has consistently said that he will consider sensible amendments to improve the Bill, both in substance and in spirit, and I hope that he will see many of our amendments on welfare as worth while, tabled in the spirit of co-operation and trying to make the Bill better rather than trying to make political points.

Clauses 19 to 23 concern the devolution to the Scottish Parliament of a number of welfare benefits, including power over disability benefits, industrial injuries allowance and carer’s allowance, the power to introduce top-up payments for people receiving reserve benefits, control over discretionary housing payments and the power to introduce new discretionary payments to help alleviate short-term need. The powers in the clauses are extensive, but there are a number of areas in which I believe they fall short, particularly as regards limiting the scope of the Scottish Parliament to make discretionary payments and create new benefits.

Paragraph 51 of the Smith commission’s report states that the Scottish Parliament

“will have complete autonomy in determining the structure and value of the”

devolved

“benefits…or any new benefits or services which might replace them.”

As I have said, we are committed, wherever possible, to abide by the spirit as well as the letter of the Smith commission’s recommendations. We believe that the term “discretionary”, as applied in this context, should not necessarily refer to the strict definition of the recipient of a payment or the duration or frequency with which they receive that payment. As Professor Paul Spicker stated in evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee:

“A payment is discretionary, not because it is short term or individual, but because it is in the power of the delegated authority to determine whether or not the payment will be made.”

However, the Bill as it stands adheres to a more restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a discretionary payment and includes a number of definitions of who can receive benefits and for how long and how often they can receive them, which would limit the autonomy of the Scottish Parliament in a way that, in my opinion, Smith did not intend.

Our amendments seek to ensure that the Scottish Parliament will not face unnecessary restrictions in its provision of discretionary payments to carers, those with disabilities or any other applicant, both in terms of who they are paid to and for how long and how often they are paid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I do agree, but I find it a little ironic that the hon. and learned Gentleman says from the Conservative Government Benches that everything should be designed to encourage people into work, when in fact the whole design of the tax credit system was to encourage people into work and the first aim of the Conservative Government seems to be to cut tax credits which would make it less attractive for people to be in work. There is a fine balance to be struck between supporting people into the workplace and in the workplace and making sure work always pays. I think all Members would agree with that principle, but cutting tax credits is not the way to make sure work pays, because it will force people into choosing whether they are better-off out of work or in work. We must strive for much higher pay in order to reduce the welfare bill in tax credits, rather than cutting tax credits; that would be coming at it from the wrong angle.

I was talking about amendments 121 and 115. These are straightforward and common-sense amendments that grant greater autonomy to the Scottish Parliament in the way it provides support to the vulnerable and those at risk in Scotland. We have tabled a number of other amendments to this section of the Bill, including amendment 112 to clause 19 which removes the phrase “short-term” in regard to disability benefits, and amendment 111, which removes the reference to “occasional” financial assistance in clause 23.

Meanwhile, our amendments 12 and 13 to clauses 21 and clause 22 respectively would allow the provision of discretionary financial assistance in a reserved benefit. I do not believe any of these amendments are particularly controversial. Indeed they have garnered a broad cross-section of support from charities, including Enable Scotland, Inclusion Scotland, Learning Disability Alliance Scotland and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations.

[Andrew Gwynne]

These amendments might not be controversial but does my hon. Friend agree that they send the important signal that a strong devolved Scottish Parliament should be able to determine the benefits for the Scottish people?

[Ian Murray]

That is right, because the commitment that was given to the Scottish people after the no vote at the referendum last September was that we would create one of the strongest devolved Parliaments in the world. In order to be able to do that, we have to give the necessary tools to the Scottish Parliament to determine not only its own direction in welfare and a host of other policy areas, but the finances it raises to pay for that. Accountability comes with that kind of financial responsibility and that is what, according to Smith, the Scottish Parliament was missing before the Scotland Act 2012 and the Scotland Bill before us today.

The Scottish Parliament needs to be given the ability to make its own decisions. Using terms such as “short-term”, “discretionary” and “on a short-term basis” do not give that flexibility. If someone were putting forward a new system of welfare in Scotland, it would be up to the electorate to decide whether they wanted that and wanted to pay for it.

I now come to arguably the most important amendment to this part of the Bill, new clause 31, which broadens the circumstances under which the Scottish Parliament can create new benefits, and brings it more into line with what I believe the Smith agreement intended. It has been co-signed by SNP Members and for that I am very grateful. Due to its significance we should be able to use it to transform this part of the Bill.

New clause 31 creates a new exception 9 in section F1 in part 2 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998—I know all Members will have read that and will know exactly what I am referring to—which allows for the creation of any benefit not currently in existence, payable by or on behalf of a UK Minister of the Crown, or otherwise a reserved benefit. In essence, this would allow the Scottish Parliament to create any new benefit which is not in existence on the date on which this Act is passed. This, I believe, goes significantly further than what is currently in the Bill.

I will be grateful if the Minister responds specifically on why this, in his view, would not be desirable or practicable, because it ensures that the power to create new benefits in Scotland rests with the Scottish Parliament and therefore the Scottish people, and that it has the flexibility and autonomy to exercise this power free from unnecessary restraint, in keeping with the spirit and substance of the Smith agreement. Of course, there will have to be joint working between the Governments to ensure that it is deliverable, and that brings me to an important common theme that has run through these Committee debates so far: the need for both Governments to work much closer together in partnership for the benefit of Scotland. We cannot emphasise that enough. We must have a much more solid partnership working and relationship to make these provisions work.

Let me be absolutely clear on this point so that there is no ambiguity: I believe in the fundamental principle that the final say on the creation of new benefits, the type of benefit created, whom it is paid to, and how long and how often it is paid, should reside with the Scottish Parliament. That is my view, and that is the view of the Labour party across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not give way again because I want to make some progress.

Paragraph 51 of the Smith agreement was quite explicit that the Scottish Parliament should have

“complete autonomy in determining the structure and value of the benefits at paragraph 49 or any new benefits or services which might replace them. For these benefits, it would be for the Scottish Parliament whether to agree a delivery partnership with DWP or to set up separate Scottish arrangements.”

I come back to the point about amendment 117. It should be for the Scottish Government to tailor policies that suit our purposes and take cognisance of the circumstances in which we live and work.

Smith was also clear that there should be powers to create new benefits and to top up benefits in reserved areas, by making, as it says in paragraph 54,

“discretionary payments in any area of welfare without the need to obtain prior permission from DWP”.

The agreement says explicitly:

“Any new benefits or discretionary payments introduced by the Scottish Parliament must provide additional income for a recipient and not result in an automatic offsetting reduction in their entitlement to other benefits or post-tax earnings if in employment.”

When we compare these sections of the agreement with the Bill, we see all too clearly that it fails to live up to what was proposed. A number of the amendments in this group seek to rectify some of those shortcomings, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take that seriously and accept some of the practical measures that would substantially improve and strengthen this Bill.

As it is currently worded, the Bill places restrictions on the ability of present or future Scottish Parliaments to provide appropriate support for sick and disabled claimants and those who provide them with unpaid care at home. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that the definition of disability benefit in the Bill places limits on the types of support that the Scottish Government could introduce, and therefore we support the wider scope that amendment 128 would give to shape policy in Scotland—for example, by enabling those with long-term and temporary conditions to receive support. That is a pragmatic but potentially far-reaching improvement.

In a similar vein, amendment 48 would remove the definition of who can be considered a carer. It is important that the restrictions on carer’s allowance eligibility definitions be removed from the Bill. If the Scottish Government could vary the eligibility conditions, or indeed the amount of a new carer’s benefit in Scotland, we could do more for the 62,000 carers in Scotland currently in receipt of carer’s allowance and potentially, depending on the will of Parliament, look at long-standing issues such as how many hours a person can study while being a carer, or how much of someone’s earnings is counted in determining their eligibility.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is not the important issue that for as long as they wish to remain within the United Kingdom, the Scottish people have the guarantee of the United Kingdom benefits system as the baseline, but through the democratic process of the ballot box, if the Scottish people seek to have a more generous and more compassionate welfare system north of the border, they should be able to have that through the Scottish Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

New clause 28 proposes the full devolution of housing benefit to the Scottish Parliament. This is another new clause, on a serious issue, that has attracted significant support from across the third sector, including from the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. There are a number of compelling reasons why we believe housing benefit should be devolved, including the joint report today to the UN by the four UK Children’s Commissioners, which warns that child poverty levels in the UK are unacceptably high and rising—their main concern being the housing element.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is not another compelling reason for the effective devolution of housing benefit to the Scottish Parliament that housing policy is already devolved? It would allow the Scottish Government to have a fully integrated housing policy, using those resources much more smartly and, effectively, being able to abolish the bedroom tax.

[Ian Murray]

I have a touch of déjà vu, as that is twice my hon. Friend has intervened with the next sentence of my speech—[Interruption.] Yes, I should stop sharing it around. He is right, and that is exactly what we said in our submission to the Smith commission. Perhaps he has read it—if he has any trouble sleeping, I highly recommend it to him. We want to increase the powers of the Scottish Parliament in areas that are closely related to devolved services, especially if that allows us to address and eliminate anomalies in the administration and delivery of vital public services. Housing policy is one such anomaly.

Most aspects of housing policy, specifically those relating to social housing, are already devolved to Scotland, including—most recently—discretionary housing payments. Social housing and housing benefit are inextricably linked: it therefore does not make sense for a devolved legislature to have control over one and not the other. That view is shared by the Institute for Public Policy Research. Devolving housing benefit to Scotland would allow for a more holistic approach to housing policy in Scotland, affording the Scottish Parliament and, crucially, local authorities far greater autonomy to tailor delivery to suit local and regional needs and circumstances. It would also transfer to the Scottish Parliament significant new resources with which to deal with the ongoing crisis in social housing.

At present, demand for social housing in Scotland, as across much of the UK, is greatly outstripping supply. Indeed, Scotland is facing its biggest housing crisis since the second world war with nearly 180,000 people in Scotland on social housing waiting lists, including 23,000 in Edinburgh alone. Earlier this year, Audit Scotland estimated that Scotland will need more than 500,000 new homes in the next 25 years. Under this Government, we have the lowest number of houses being built since 1947, and our public housing stock is decreasing drastically. The number of new social homes being built each year is down by more than 20%. generation rent is overlooked by the Government: Those in Scotland’s growing private rented sector face rising rents and being forced to move house too often. An individual living in social rented housing has the same address for an average of only 2.6 years, and families make up nearly half the people who are moving around in less than that average.

In the past 10 years, the number of people living in the private rented sector has doubled to 368,000; the number of households in poverty in the private rented sector has also doubled in the past decade, to 120,000. In 2014, almost 1 million households, or 2 million individuals, were living in fuel poverty, an increase of almost 300,000 on the previous year. That all relates to policies and their impact on people living in inadequate private housing. We will continue to fight for a better deal for the private rented sector.

Shelter Scotland, the much-respected charity, identified the negative effect of homelessness and temporary housing on children’s education and health. It researched the impact, particularly on children and on families with children, of living in inadequate housing in the private rented sector, as well as of homelessness, the inability to get into social housing and being stuck in temporary housing for too long. I will pick out just one or two points.

The research states that homeless children are two or three times more likely to be absent from school than other children due to the disruption caused by moving into, and between, temporary accommodation. I see that in my own constituency, where the situation is drastic. My constituency must have one of the most acute social housing shortages in the country. Many families end up either stuck in temporary accommodation or moved around temporary accommodation regularly. Homeless children are three or four times more likely to have mental health problems—a fairly obvious conclusion because of such instability. Some 90% of respondents to a Shelter survey said that their children had suffered from living in temporary accommodation. The longer families live in temporary accommodation, the more likely they are to attribute to it their worsening health.

It is important that we should be able to deal with those issues, but there is no doubt that housing benefit and the ability to access housing benefit resources are inextricably linked with building more social homes and with the whole of social housing policy within the Scottish Parliament. Karen Campbell, the director of policy and operations at Homes for Scotland, stated:

“Scotland’s housing crisis affects all tenures, whether for social/private rent or sale. This is having a severe impact on the lives of Scots across the whole country, particularly young people and growing families. No other sector impacts such a wide range of policy issues yet the number of new homes being built has fallen to its lowest level in some 70 years, threatening Scotland’s social and economic well-being.”

From the results of the Shelter survey, we can see that the social wellbeing of many families, and particularly the children in those families, is a real issue.

Devolving housing benefit to Scotland would afford the Scottish Parliament substantial additional funds to address the shortfall. It would unlock up to £1.8 billion of resources, the largest spend on a single benefit in Scotland after the old age state pension. That could, over time, be invested in the provision of new housing stock in Scotland. I appreciate that that cannot happen overnight, because there would have to be some mechanism to allow the fund to be accessed—potentially through prudential borrowing, which local authorities could use to reduce housing benefit and build more houses. That would not only serve to alleviate the pressure on social housing, but create jobs and help to depress housing costs across the private rented sector. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation noted,

“investing in affordable supply will place downward pressure on rents and subsequently reduce the burden of housing costs upon the budgets of low income households living in the private rented sector in Scotland.”

That point is hugely important. The Government have tried to come down incredibly hard on the housing benefit bill, but it has doubled in the past decade or so—they have not been able to deal with the supply and demand issue. The number of my constituents who end up in the much more expensive private rented sector—almost double the rent of social or affordable housing—clearly pushes up the housing benefit bill. Before the Secretary of State, or the governor of Scotland, jumps to his feet and tells us that the housing benefit bill is going up because of worklessness, let me state the reality: nearly 70% of my constituents in receipt of housing benefit are actually in work. This is a huge issue not just in terms of social impact, but in getting the housing benefit bill down. We have to get people into much more affordable housing.

As an added and not insignificant bonus, devolving housing benefit would, as we have discussed, allow the Scottish Parliament to put an end to one of the cruellest and most iniquitous policies of recent years—the bedroom tax. We need to consider double devolution, a point made regularly in these debates, as the Scottish Parliament is very centralist. We need to devolve power down to the communities best able to use them. For example, housing benefit should be administered at the local authority level because each local authority has its own housing needs and demands—for example, in respect of key workers and specific demographics. I hope that these strong arguments will convince the Government and hon. Members to support our new clause 28.

The Bill could also be enhanced on the provision of childcare, which Labour’s new clause 53 would do by devolving the childcare element of universal credit to the Scottish Parliament. The childcare element is closely linked to the provision of employment support programmes, and devolving it would increase the capacity of the Scottish Parliament and local authorities to help parents obtain and remain in employment by assisting them with the rapidly escalating cost of childcare—the cost of childcare in Scotland has risen much higher than in the rest of the UK. It is one of the main obstacles to parents entering and remaining in the labour market. Devolving the childcare element would afford the Scottish Parliament a valuable new mechanism for removing that obstacle and allowing parents to enter the jobs market.

Dr McCormick, the Scotland adviser to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and a member of the Social Security Advisory Committee, stated in response to the Smith commission proposals that

“the costs of childcare in Scotland are high by international standards and rise much faster than inflation... Childcare is a clear example where both closer alignment with the Scottish Government’s childcare offer and stronger incentives to invest are needed. The Bill should empower the Scottish Government to vary childcare allowances via Universal Credit, on the same basis as housing allowances.”

New clause 53 would provide for the power to be devolved to the Scottish Government so that they can do precisely that, and I hope that the Government and hon. Members across the House see the value of supporting it.

I wish to turn briefly to other amendments, chiefly to new clauses 39, 40, 44 and 46, in the name of the SNP, and to new clause 55, in the name of the SNP’s favourite Conservative, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). As I said, there is no fundamental problem with the devolution of the entire social security system—or, indeed, of the entire income tax system or any of these other policies. They do, however, have one thing in common. New clause 55 would end the UK-wide welfare state, and we do not wish to see an end to it—that will not come as a surprise to the House. We completely reject anything that would end the UK-wide welfare state. In the context of keeping the UK-wide welfare state together, it would not be desirable to devolve to the Scottish Parliament powers that the Smith agreement stipulated should remain reserved—for example, around Jobcentre Plus, national insurance contributions and child benefit.

[Andrew Gwynne]

In the past, my hon. Friend has spoken passionately about the need to pool resources and risks across the whole UK. Does he share my concern that the effective ending of a UK-wide national insurance system would also end the pooling of those risks and responsibilities for a UK-wide welfare state?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend must have brilliant eyesight. I am not sure whether it is the glasses, whether he is just insightful or whether he can read minds, but, believe it or not, I am about to come to that. Perhaps we are on the same wavelength.

I shall examine some of those issues now. I am a little confused, because I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) moved new clauses 39 and 40 on the devolution of national insurance contributions. [Interruption.] She might be moving them later. I know she spoke to them, but I am unaware that she moved them. For the record, we would oppose the devolution of national insurance contributions, for the very reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has just set out. The pooling of risks and resources is explicit in national insurance contributions. The UK national insurance system is the largest insurance scheme of all and secures benefits to all through the widest possible risk pool.

The SNP’s new clauses seek to devolve national insurance in a manner that betrays a basic lack of understanding about the highly integrated and interlocking nature of the social security system, and they would mean having to deal with a huge array of complex issues. Even if we went beyond the principle of the pooling and sharing of resources, there would have to be a separate Scottish national insurance fund to receive all future national insurance contributions from Scottish taxpayers; all existing contributory benefits accumulated up to the vested date would have to be honoured by the UK national insurance fund; and transfers from the Scottish to the UK national insurance fund would have to follow Scottish taxpayers moving elsewhere in the UK.

Some issues were mentioned by the hon. Member for Gainsborough in speaking to his new clause 3, which related to the first part of the Bill. In talking about full fiscal autonomy, he mentioned that there would have to be significant redress to the UK national insurance fund. He raised issues about survivors’ benefits and where the people affected were living. As well as the principle of not devolving national insurance, there is also the matter of how to deal with the complex issues that would be raised across the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I am delighted that we have support for the amendments from our friends in the Labour party. As the SNP spokesperson on fair work and employment, I rise to speak up for the many who will look to the Scotland Bill to deliver on Smith and give the Scottish Parliament the tangible new powers so trumpeted by those on the Government Benches.

We on the SNP Benches find the powers on offer today sadly lacking, and I am disappointed to see the lack of willingness to accept any SNP amendments. Smith was clear on the devolution of employment programmes. He said:

“"The Scottish Parliament will have all powers over support for unemployed people through the employment programmes currently contracted by DWP (which are presently delivered mainly, but not exclusively, through the Work Programme and Work Choice) on expiry of the current commercial arrangements. The Scottish Parliament will have the power to decide how it operates these core employment support services. Funding for these services will be transferred from the UK Parliament in line with the principles set out in paragraph 95.”

However, the Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, in its interim report on the draft Scotland Bill clauses, considered at paragraph 335 that

“the clauses as currently drafted do not fully implement the Smith Commission recommendations. The Committee considers that the Smith Commission intended that all employment programmes currently contracted by DWP should be devolved. Therefore, the Committee recommends that any future Bill should not place any restriction on the type of person receiving support or in regard to the length of unemployment any person has experienced. The Committee considers that this should include the devolution of the Access to Work Programme.”

At paragraph 337 the Committee recommended that

“the principles which will govern the operation of inter-governmental relations with regard to welfare, including employment support, should be placed in any future Bill devolving power in this area.”

The Committee expected that that would include the principles by which the Scottish and UK Parliaments could

“maintain scrutiny and oversight of the inter-governmental machinery with regard to welfare and employment support.”

The employment support clause, clause 26, as introduced, does not have any changes from the draft clauses. The UK Government have not, therefore, followed the views of the all-party Scottish Parliament Committee, on which there were Conservative members, and the Bill, as it stands, does not deliver on Smith.

There is no evidence of the respect agenda in the Bill. It is vital that the employment powers give Scotland the power to give Scottish solutions to Scottish challenges. It is not good enough to promise one thing in the Smith commission and then to come to this House with a Bill that does not live up to the promises made. Furthermore, the overwhelming mandate that the Scottish people have given the SNP indicates that they expect this Parliament to deliver beyond Smith. Smith is not the floor or the ceiling of our aspirations for the people of Scotland.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Lady makes a compelling case for employment support to be devolved to Scotland, but does she agree that it needs to be devolved still further within Scotland so that local authorities in Scotland can develop work programmes to suit their needs? The needs of Glasgow, for example, are very different from the needs of the highlands.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I agree with him to some extent. We have had significant success with our Opportunities for All programme. He obviously has some insight into what I was going to say. I will come on to that later in my speech.

The people of Scotland deserve better. We need a streamlined system that looks holistically at how we support people back to work and what kind of employment they are offered, rather than the random approach that seems to take place much of the time at present. We need to look at people’s skill sets and expertise and what potential they have to offer. We hear much talk of aspiration from the Government Benches, yet the stream of people I have had through my door at constituency surgeries in Livingston in the past few weeks, concerned about benefit cuts and sanctions, suggests that the concept of aspiration and opportunity certainly did not make its way into this part of the Bill. If we are truly to give the unemployed opportunities through these programmes, the Scottish Parliament must have the powers it needs at its disposal, to tailor these programmes for those most in need.

As the devolution committee pointed out at paragraph 303, the original Scotland Act 1998 reserved employment policy. That included job search and support, with the exception of careers services and training for employment. Draft clause 22, which became clause 26 in the published Bill, set out further exceptions to the reservation in the 1998 Act: assisting disabled persons to select, obtain and retain employment, and assisting persons claiming reserved benefits who are at risk of long-term unemployment to select, obtain and retain employment, where the assistance is for at least a year.

However, a range of organisations expressed a view on whether the suggested clause delivered on the Smith agreement. At paragraph 306 Inclusion Scotland is quoted as saying in its written evidence:

“The Smith Commission proposes that ‘The Scottish Parliament will have all powers over support for unemployed people through the employment programmes currently contracted by DWP.’ However, both the narrative and draft clauses appear to restrict this power to employment support schemes that last over a year. It is not clear why this restriction has been included and it appears to be a direct contradiction of the Smith Commission proposal.”

Inclusion Scotland argued that

“the most effective employment support schemes are short term schemes designed to identify the barriers preventing someone gaining employment and providing support, training and assistance to overcome these. If a scheme lasts for more than a year without supporting someone into employment, surely it has failed?”

Inclusion Scotland also pointed out that the UK Government also appear to have arbitrarily applied the reference to conditionality and sanctioning for universal credit to devolved employment support schemes, including the use of mandatory placements. It states:

“It is not clear how this is compatible with the Scottish Parliament having all powers over support for unemployed people through the employment programme, for example if the Scottish Parliament determines that participation in such schemes should be voluntary.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I will speak particularly to amendments 113, 9, 114 and 10, and much of what I will say will echo what the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said about the devolution of employment programmes.

It is clear that there are different labour markets not just between England, Scotland and Wales but within those nations. That is why I echo the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made about the opportunity that our amendments and the SNP amendments offer not just for devolution to Scotland but for double devolution of labour market programmes within Scotland.

[Andrew Gwynne]

As a Greater Manchester MP like myself, my hon. Friend will know that as part of the cities and devolution package, Greater Manchester will be invited to bid for the next phase of the Work programme. Does that not suggest that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said,double devolution is needed in Scotland so that communities can develop work programmes that are specific to them rather than centralised in Holyrood?

[Kate Green]

I agree. The intention stated in the Labour manifesto was to devolve labour market programmes to what we described as a combined authority footprint. That would enable recognition of the fact that local labour markets differ and recognition of the different industrial history and characteristics of people in particular parts of the country. Importantly, it would allow close alignment with the skills and industrial opportunities in particular communities. We want to see that opportunity for the devolution of labour market programmes to a sensible, localised level; I doubt whether it would be the whole of Scotland, because labour markets differ significantly within Scotland. There are considerable differences between the highlands and the central belt conurbations, for example.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

Perhaps I should sit down and allow my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) to guess what might be in my speech—he could also give us Saturday’s lottery numbers while he is at it.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I’m not that good.

[Ian Murray]

He might not be that good. If he had won the lottery he would not be wearing that suit—I can be nasty to my own side, as well as to the SNP.

Clauses 26 to 30 are largely concerned with minor and technical changes to existing legislation. Amendment 113 would allow the provision of employment programmes where assistance is for less than one year. The reasoning behind that does not require much explanation, other than to point out that many people move jobs several times a year, especially in the current highly fluid labour market in which there is a dearth of long-term secure employment. Indeed, the labour market seems short-term and insecure with poorly paid work. Many people in part-time jobs are looking for full-time work, and many people are on zero-hours contracts.

The Smith agreement states that the Scottish Parliament

“will have all powers over support for unemployed people through the employment programmes currently contracted to DWP”.

However, clause 26 currently restricts the powers devolved to employment support programmes that last at least a year. Amendment 113 would remove that restriction to allow the development of programmes to support those who move in and out of work within one year.

Amendment 9 emphasises that employment support programmes in Scotland must be developed in close conjunction with local authorities. That will ensure that service delivery is tailored to the needs and circumstances of local communities and is responsive to the local jobs market. In that regard, we are happy to support amendments 120, 121 and 122, which provide for the creation of new employment programmes in Scotland, on the understanding that they are developed and run in close conjunction with local authorities.

[Ian Murray]

I agree to a certain extent. In the area the hon. Gentleman represents, many of the local authorities are either incredibly small in population terms or incredibly large in geographical terms, and that would have its challenges. But many local authorities work together on many aspects of Scottish local government life. For example, Edinburgh works closely with Midlothian, a local authority that is smaller than my constituency. East Lothian, West Lothian and Fife also tend to work together on many issues. While we would like to see double devolution to local authorities, it does not necessarily mean to one individual authority. Many authorities would probably work together to try to make the best use of work programmes and job opportunities.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ian Murray]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, who will probably tell me what I am about to say.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I can tell him that the bonus ball will be 32.

The issue of local authorities is important. Of course, the Manchester example is not one single local authority: it is a combined authority of 10 metropolitan borough councils. It would also be possible in Scotland and other parts of the UK for local authorities to come together to bid for the work programmes.

[Ian Murray]

I hope the bonus ball this week is not 32, otherwise we will be in trouble.

My hon. Friend is right: it is about local authorities working together. There is nothing wrong with saying that the Scottish Parliament has been a centralist Government—that is what happened as a result of the policies that were pursued. That is a legitimate choice for a Government to make. All we are suggesting is that perhaps some of the work programmes that would be best delivered by local authorities are sent to them. I know that my own local authority, Edinburgh, runs several highly successful programmes, such as the JET programme for young people and other programmes to get disabled people and others into work, and we should trust them to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

Our success to date in implementing automatic enrolment could not have been achieved without the significant ongoing support of a number of sectors, including the pensions and payroll industries. Friends of automatic enrolment have played a crucial role in bringing together organisations that are playing a key role in its delivery. Together they have helped the Government improve the process of automatic enrolment and ensure that these reforms work. We thank them for their support so far and their commitment to continuing to work with us as we start the process of helping 1.3 million smaller employers implement automatic enrolment for their workers.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

But will the Minister advise the House of his estimate of the number of workers who are excluded from the benefit of auto-enrolment because of the changes in the threshold over the past five years, and of what proportion of those workers are women?

[Justin Tomlinson]

The Secretary of State is required by law to review the automatic enrolment thresholds in each tax year and may take into account a range of prescribed factors. The review can include considering whether to lower or increase the thresholds or leave them unchanged, as was the case for the current tax year. Freezing the trigger for this tax year will result in approximately 14,000 additional women and 20,000 people overall being brought into pension savings. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, I am happy to write to him with further information.

Amendment of the Law

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I first take the opportunity to note the many valedictory speeches by right hon. and hon. Members who have chosen to step down at the forthcoming general election? They brought back many good memories of my time working with them.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) reminded us of the necessary steps he took after the global banking crisis, which, of course, the Conservative party wants to airbrush from our recent economic history. I am glad we managed to keep the cash machines working, but the recklessness of the banks left a dreadful legacy and deficit that has stayed with us to this day.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) spoke passionately. He has been a good friend to many Members on both sides of the House and he will be an enormous loss to Parliament. He is such an impressive individual and one of the great parliamentarians whose capability is incomparable.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) spoke passionately about her advocacy of getting young people involved in politics. Her achievements will be seen for many decades to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) also talked about their belief in public service and the need to invest in public services, and they told us that we should never forget the need to regulate the banking sector and make sure that the dreadful activities we have seen are never repeated. Those were fine valedictory remarks. I do not have time, in the final moments of several days of debate on the Budget, to congratulate and thank my many other colleagues who spoke passionately today.

This is the coalition’s last Budget. The final verdict is in. There are no more opportunities to pull rabbits out of the Government’s Budget boxes, whether they be red or yellow. For all the Chancellor’s complacency about walking tall and how we have never had it so good, the residual legacy of last Wednesday was confirmation that, if the Government parties get their way with their proposed public investment in vital public services, the rollercoaster will be pushed over a precipice.

The Chancellor tried every trick in the book to distract from the Government’s plan for extreme cuts, and he hoped that the public would not notice his record of failure on living standards and borrowing. Every target he has set has been missed and every promise broken.

In 2010, the Chancellor told us that the structural deficit would be eradicated in time for this Budget—it would all be gone—yet we are still borrowing £90 billion this year, which is only a 5% fall from last year’s deficit. Tax receipts should have been strong and tax credit costs significantly lower by now, but in the low-wage economy that this Chancellor has fostered—with an epidemic of job insecurity and zero-hours contracts up 20% in this past year alone—revenues have stagnated and the Government are spending £25 billion more on social security than the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Chancellor had expected. We were meant to have an export-led recovery, heading towards £1 trillion-worth of exports by 2020, but we have already fallen a little bit behind that target—about £300 billion behind it. Moreover, our triple A rating, which was once this Chancellor’s litmus test of economic credibility, was, of course, downgraded.

It was not supposed to be like that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) has pointed out, and this is not where the Chief Secretary’s party wanted to be, either. The Budget spectacle over the past few days has been not of a responsible Government focused on the economy, but of an out-of-touch Chancellor in denial and focused on political survival and a Chief Secretary counting down the hours and living out his own fantasy, which even his own leader could not bear to sit through.

The reality is that we have had one and a half Budgets in two days from two parties that had nothing to offer the majority of people in this country. Those two parties are basing decisions on party political interests and their perceived electoral advantage, rather than on what is in Britain’s best interests. The Chancellor’s Budget was a Budget that could not be believed, and the Chief Secretary’s statement was just unbelievable—a Budget not for public services, not for working people, not for families and not for the NHS.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Leslie]

I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Now that the dust has settled from Thursday’s Liberal Democrat statement, has my hon. Friend had the chance to scrutinise the document—published online, rather than available in the Vote Office—and if so, may I draw his attention to table 2.A on the scenario input assumptions? Did he notice, as I did, that the source for the assumptions was not authoritative bodies such as the ONS, the OBR or the IFS, but none other than the Chief Secretary to the Treasury?

[Chris Leslie]

I commend to Conservative Members, who should have a good read of it, this very authoritative document with very carefully crafted figures:

“Source: Chief Secretary to the Treasury”.

It was a classic. My hon. Friend knows that the real Budget was in the Red Book. Shall I pass it to him? Perhaps not.

The Chancellor told us in the Budget that everything was sunshine and roses, but in coalition Britain, 900,000 people use food banks, 600,000 people are affected by the bedroom tax, the typical working person is £1,600 a year worse off and the NHS is in crisis. The Chancellor tried to find the best statistic, however obscure, to muddy the waters and deny what most working people know, which is that their wages have eroded year after year as we have experienced the longest period of prices exceeding income since the 1920s. He did that by relying on a forecast for this year, rather than real data, and by adding university and charitable income, as well as what are known as imputed rents from homes even if they are not actually rented. That was basically designed to say, “If you stand on one leg and squint a little, there you are—you’re back to 2010 levels of affluence and incomes.” Even on that statistical measure, from election date to election date—rather than the start of the calendar year, as the Chancellor tried to use—people are still worse off than they were. Of course, all that does nothing to change the burden of higher taxes and lower tax credits that have seen families worse off by more than £1,000 a year. As ever, the Chancellor may give a little with one hand, but he takes away much more with the other.

By the way, now that the Chancellor has taken the time to enter the Chamber, it would be interesting to know whether he has spotted the Prime Minister’s announcement this afternoon. I understand that the Prime Minister has indicated that he will not stand for election again after this general election. He has said tonight that he is likely to be gone in a couple of years’ time, so what will the country be voting for at the next election? I can see the poster now—“Vote Cameron, get Osborne”—and all the right-wing agenda that would go with it. A Prime Minister who did not win his first election, and had not won a second election, would be saying that he would not win a third.

Of course there were a few give-away measures in the Budget, and we welcome anything that helps those on lower and middle incomes. Why, however, does the Chancellor still stand by the biggest give-away of them all? His tax cut for the wealthiest 1%—those earning £150,000—means that someone earning £1 million each year gets an annual tax cut of £42,000. That is simply unfair and unacceptable, and that is why we will vote against those income tax plans this evening. We will vote against the Government’s Budget plans for public services and public investment, because although we must balance the books as soon as possible in the next Parliament, going so far beyond that—with cuts over the next three years that are twice as deep as those of the past three years—means extreme cuts to services on a scale not experienced for generations. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

It really is not that confusing. Even the shadow Chief Secretary ought to understand that two different parties in a coalition Government will have different views about the future direction of policy in this country. I would say—[Interruption.] If the hecklers would silence themselves, I would say that Labour signed up to £30 billion of deficit reduction in the first three years of the next Parliament when they voted for the charter for budget responsibility. I am sure you remember the occasion, Mr Speaker. It was an important debate in the House, and one to which the country should be paying great attention. It is fair to say that all parties in the House have different views about how to achieve that £30 billion of cuts, and I set out my view to the House on Thursday.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Tell us!

[Danny Alexander]

If the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) had not been cavorting so loudly, the shadow Chief Secretary might have been able to listen to my speech on that occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

That is a good question. Last year, two thirds of local authorities did not spend all the money that the Government allocated to them. If the money is not spent, it returns to central Government and to whence it came—that is, to the taxpayer

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

25. What has the Minister got to say to my constituent Mr Cocks, who has not only lived in his two-bedroom house in Denton for more than six decades, but was born there? This is not a house; it is his home. Last year he qualified for a discretionary housing payment, but he has been refused one for next year. Is this not yet another example of how cruel the bedroom tax can be, given that in a few years my constituent will be exempt from it anyway?

[Mr Harper]

As I have said, the Government have made discretionary housing payments available to local authorities so that they can take specific facts into account, because they are obviously better acquainted with what is happening on the ground. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent is that he should talk to his local authority.

Compulsory Jobs Guarantee

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

Young people want a job. That is what they are asking for and that is what we will provide under the jobs guarantee, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will support us.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

May I commend to my right hon. Friend the work of Tameside’s Labour council, which has implemented, as part of its “15for15” pledges, a local youth jobs guarantee and a Tameside enterprise scheme that will support small businesses not only to take on and to train young people, but to give them vital mentoring?

[Stephen Timms]

I am glad to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Councillor Kieran Quinn and Tameside’s council on what they have achieved. We are seeing this idea being introduced by Labour councils. We heard earlier this afternoon about the Edinburgh guarantee, and these ideas are now taking their place around the country. We now need the Government to be putting a national guarantee in place.

Unemployment is now, at long last, back on the downward path that the Labour Government set it on in 2010, although, of course, its level is yet to return to the lows under Labour before the global financial crash.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The interesting thing about this development, which I hope has support on both sides of the House, is that these social investment bonds have advanced dramatically in the past four years, making the UK now a world leader in this, with lots of different Governments coming to ask how to implement it. With the tax relief that we have granted to social investment bonds, the future funding in many of these projects will involve more and more decisions being able to be taken by local government; it will be able to set individual projects up and fund them, without recourse to government, but with a return. So we will be paying for things that happen rather than things that might happen—that is the key.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

But ending the wage incentive part of the Youth Contract eight months early was a tacit admission of its failure. Only 10,000 young people completed the contract, whereas 160,000 were budgeted for. Can the Secretary of State tell us what went wrong?