Universal Credit Split Payments

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Danielle Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: being financially dependent can make it very difficult to leave a relationship, even just on the basic levels of affording transport and accommodation. A local case—one of the first cases I dealt with when I was elected—was that of a woman who was trying to leave an abusive partner. She had three children, one of them very young, and she came to me and said, “I don’t know what to do. My welfare payments are paid into my partner’s account, and I can’t leave. I’m now faced with a choice between staying, and subjecting not just myself but my children to this abuse, or leaving, making myself and my children homeless and unable to afford accommodation.” It cannot be Government policy to force people into that terrible position.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. As someone who sits on the Work and Pensions Committee, know that the—evidence we received was shocking. Is the hon. Lady as disappointed as I am that the Select Committee’s eighth recommendation—that

“where claimants have dependent children, the entire UC payment should be made to the main carer by default”—

appears to be getting rejected in the Government’s response?

[Danielle Rowley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely agree with him, and I will give some of my own thoughts on the Government’s response to that as well.

Work and Pensions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from questions on a statement on Widowed Parent’s Allowance on 5 September 2018.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It seems clear that the will of the House is that a child who has lost a parent should not be penalised because of the marital status of the parents. Does the Minister intend to carry out an equality impact assessment of this benefit?

[Justin Tomlinson]

Actually, as part of the commitment to bringing in the new bereavement payments, we will do a full impact assessment, which will be shared with the House. One of the key changes is the additional £1,500 in the initial payment for those in a marriage or civil partnership who had children. We understand the importance of making sure that those with children get additional support.

[Official Report, 5 September 2018, Vol. 646, c. 193.]

Letter of correction from Justin Tomlinson:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens).

The correct response should have been:

Funeral Poverty

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

It should come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I will address all the points he raises.

As I was saying, a record 8 million working adults live in poverty in the UK, with 14 million people overall living in poverty. It is little wonder that, for someone living day by day and hand to mouth, the final act of giving a deserving tribute to their loved ones is heartbreakingly out of reach. An estimated 81% of people have been unable to save for a funeral. Funeral poverty in the UK has now reached a record high of more than £160 million in 2017—a 50% increase in the last three years alone. There has also been an increase in people having to wait more than a year to bury family members.

The cost of a basic funeral is now £4,078, yet this can rise in some London areas to as high as a staggering £12,000. Around a quarter of families that cannot afford funerals borrow from friends or relatives, a quarter put costs on a credit card, and the rest take out loans or work out an instalment plan with funeral directors. Some even sell their belongings. It has been revealed recently that people are increasingly turning to crowd- funding websites to raise money for funerals, with JustGiving showing a 400% increase in people asking for money from friends, families and strangers to fund funerals for their loved ones. I cannot imagine having to seek support from strangers on a faceless website to pay for a loved one’s funeral.

My Bill and the “Support for the bereaved” report by the Work and Pensions Committee both called on the Government to negotiate a simple funeral service and to establish with the sector a reasonable cost for items required for a simple funeral. The Government claim that doing so would interfere with people’s choice but that they are working with stakeholders to agree what might be included in a standard package funeral. I hope the Minister can advise us what stage he is at after two years of discussions.

For those struggling to afford a funeral, there is state support in the form of the social fund funeral payment. It is accessible to those on certain benefits, but it is in absolutely dire need of reform. In 2017, out of the 41,800 applications for the fund, 16,900 were declined. Considering that the fund can be accessed only once funeral costs have been committed to—once a debt exists—that leaves almost 17,000 people struggling to pay. The DWP’s target to deal with claims is 16 days, yet the average between a death and a funeral is 13 days, and much less for some religions and cultures.

Those payments also categorise certain aspects of a funeral. The provisions refer to “other expenses” as being funeral directors’ fees, ministers’ fees and a coffin. These apparently optional extras have been capped for 15 years at £700. If the cap had kept up with inflation, it would be £300 higher today. However, funeral costs have far exceeded the rate of inflation, more than doubling since 2003.

I acknowledge the Government’s changes in recent years, such as allowing recipients to receive contributions from other sources without deductions, extending the claim period from three to six months after the funeral, and introducing both a shorter application form for children’s funerals and the electronic submission of forms. However, the stark reality is that, without exploring the regulation of the market and funding demand and establishing eligibility for the social fund before people commit to costs, the number of those in funeral debt will continue to swell. In 2016, the then Minister rejected calls for an eligibility checker, saying that that would cause more “confusion”. I find it absolutely impossible to see how someone knowing whether they are eligible to afford a funeral for their loved one before committing to one can cause more confusion than not knowing and being saddled with debt.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is making very important points about the social fund funeral payment system. Does she agree that it not only is confusing but adds considerable emotional stress for those going through the system if they wait so long for a decision as to whether they will get money, bearing in mind that the grant itself does not even meet some of the basic costs of a cremation, for example?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The process is indeed distressing and complex for many people. I think the forms that need to be filled in number 24 or 26 in total. When someone is grieving and trying to find the money to pay for a funeral for a loved one, filling in 20-odd forms and trying to have a clear head while doing so is nigh on impossible.

Today the Minister may well refer to budgeting loans as an option for helping families to pay for funerals, but I am sure he knows as well as I do that the figures for how many people apply for those loans for funerals are not recorded or kept centrally and that the average amount of a loan in the past year was only £420.

The Government should note that putting their head in the sand does not make this problem go away; it simply moves it around. A freedom of information request via ITV revealed that a 70% increase in public health funerals over the past three years has cost local councils up to £4 million. Historically referred to as paupers’ funerals, they are the last option when there is no one available to pay. It was also revealed that some local authorities were not allowing families even to attend those services. In short, taxpayers are paying for funerals one way or the other. Surely, making the fund fit for purpose is preferable to the scenarios I have outlined.

I am pleased to say that, where the Government are failing, others have stepped up. The Fair Funerals campaign—Fair Funerals is no longer in operation, but I thank it for its co-operation over the past few years—successfully managed to persuade one third of the industry’s members to display transparent, honest prices on their websites. The Co-op announced that it would invest a further £6 million in lowering funeral costs by introducing a best-price guarantee, reducing the cost of its cheapest funeral to £1,895, and the Competition and Markets Authority announced a review of the £2 billion funerals market earlier this year.

At Prime Minister’s questions last week, the Prime Minister was asked to meet a Conservative Member to discuss funeral poverty. The Prime Minister declined a meeting and went on to assert that

“the funeral expenses payments do continue to cover the necessary costs involved with funerals and cremations”.—[Official Report, 5 September 2018; Vol. 646, c. 160.]

That is completely wrong and contradicts the DWP webpage, which clearly states that the payment

“will not usually cover all of the costs of the funeral.”

It is also at odds with what funeral directors themselves are saying, with 95% reporting that Government funeral payments no longer cover even the very basic costs.

I appreciate that, in the past, Ministers have been unable to comply with all my asks on funeral poverty, so today I have only two main asks: a commitment to raising the social fund funeral payments and a commitment to introducing an eligibility check. Those two simple asks would make a world of difference.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who is not here with us today, and of the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). Both are doughty campaigners on this issue.

Funerals are not a choice. Death shakes us and changes us forever. No one ever wants their loved one to pass away, and the debts associated with the funeral—or the memory of not being able to give them a decent send-off—loom over people for years. In austerity Britain, people are not just struggling to afford to live; they are also unable to afford to die. The Minister has an opportunity today to make some very small departmental differences that would ease this enormous burden on people in their darkest days. I just hope that, this time, he will.

Widowed Parent’s Allowance

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It seems clear that the will of the House is that a child who has lost a parent should not be penalised because of the marital status of the parents. Does the Minister intend to carry out an equality impact assessment of this benefit?

[Justin Tomlinson]

Actually, as part of the commitment to bringing in the new bereavement payments, we will do a full impact assessment, which will be shared with the House. One of the key changes is the additional £1,500 in the initial payment for those in a marriage or civil partnership who had children. We understand the importance of making sure that those with children get additional support.[Official Report, 13 September 2018, Vol. 646, c. 6MC.]

Universal Credit

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend, because nobody can do this in isolation or by themselves. We need the local councils to be on board, we need the housing associations to be on board and we need MPs to be on board—we need everybody supporting the most vulnerable. I thank him for that comment, and he is quite correct.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the National Audit Office that universal credit is moving people into debt and that the first debt is rent arrears? Claimants are not getting their rent paid and housing providers find out that a person is on universal credit only when they are in arrears. Is that not a reason why universal credit should be paused?

[Ms McVey]

Some of the key changes that were done during this year were the advances to provide extra support if people were in need of extra money and the two-week run-on in housing benefit. So we learnt, changed and adapted. Those things have been brought in, but only this year. Therefore, again, their impacts cannot have been felt. But we listened, we learnt, we altered and we have done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are no cash losers from this policy: anybody who has an existing third child will continue to retain their support, and that will be preserved as they transition on to UC; we will continue to pay child benefit, no matter the number of children; and of course there will be significant childcare assistance for those who move on to UC.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Is it not the case that universal credit claimants with family responsibilities could face a sanction for refusing a job offer with a zero-hours contract? Is it not also the case that the Government are forcing people into insecure, low-paid work?

[Kit Malthouse]

The whole point of the new constructive relationship between work coaches and their clients is that they are able to take people’s personal circumstances into account, particularly in respect of children and childcare responsibilities. If sanctions are required, they are at all times reasonable and commensurate with the person’s circumstances. The enormous assistance that we are giving for childcare should hopefully overcome any barriers, but if the hon. Gentleman has constituency cases that he would like to bring to my attention, I would be more than happy to look at them.

Universal Credit and Welfare Changes

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend for doing so much in this area. She often meets me to talk about ideas that she thinks would make considerable improvements, and one of her suggestions was video recording. We want to give people confidence in the system and to get transparency in the system, which is why we have said that we will implement the idea. Over the summer we will be testing and learning by working with disabled people and asking them, “Do you feel more confident with this? Is video recording what you want?” We have made a commitment to improve the process through recording.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I, too, was at Marylebone jobcentre as part of the Work and Pensions Committee’s inquiry into benefit sanctions. Given that the Secretary of State seems open to suggestions, may I suggest that she reviews the policy whereby a claimant can be sanctioned if they refuse a zero-hours contract? Could it not be counterproductive in the fight against poverty to move people from out of work into low-paid, insecure work?

[Ms McVey]

Yes, of course I will listen to what is best with sanctions, because the key aim is not to give anybody sanctions, but to help people into work—that is what we need to do. Since benefits began, there has always been some form of sanctions regime that says, “If you’re not living up to our expectations, this is what will happen,” but that is minimal on jobseeker’s allowance, and even less on employment and support allowance—less than 1%. We want to make sure that we get people into work, and if the hon. Gentleman has suggestions, I will meet him.

Mortgage Interest

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for mortgage interest.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone.

When people develop disability during their working life, it can disrupt those lives in profound ways, often making it impossible for them to work. Disability will not always take a person’s life plans into account, and the Government have a responsibility to stabilise people’s lives in new circumstances. Recent changes to the Government support for mortgage interest scheme mean that the safety net to help such people to keep their homes is being eroded.

Taking out a mortgage over several decades is of course always a risk. Most people would never dream, on signing those papers, that a disability might one day affect their ability to pay the mortgage. Yet with about 170,000 claims for support for mortgage interest as of 2016, the issue is clearly widespread and affects a significant percentage of home-owning families in the UK.

Until 5 April 2018 the Government had offered support for mortgage interest as a benefit to homeowners in hardship. That covered only the interest payments on their mortgage. The amount borrowed, insurance policies and arrears were to be paid by the homeowner, but for disabled claimants that in practice would mean scraping the money together from their employment support allowance and personnel independence payments.

Since April, the Government have stopped mortgage interest support, instead offering a loan to be paid back with interest. It is repaid when the home is sold, ownership is transferred or the homeowner dies, making the sale of the house more costly and difficult for the claimant or members of the family. Many people are wary of taking out a loan due to that aspect of the policy, and the effect it might have on a future house sale.

Figures contained in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” reveal that although all existing claimants have been contacted about the change, only about 10,000 have so far agreed to take up the loan. According to the document, that is

“90 per cent short of the 100,000 expected by the end of 2018-19.”

Many constituents have also approached me about the fact the loans will be delivered by Serco, a company exposed in the Paradise papers as having

“a history of problems, failures, fatal errors and overcharging”.

Problems with the policy may cause many people to sell their unaffordable homes and move into the private rented sector. In doing so, many would be eligible for housing benefit, but that would in fact create additional expense for the taxpayer: the average support for mortgage interest claimant under the pre-April rules received about £1,800 per year, whereas the average housing benefit claimant receives about £5,000 per year.

The Government have labelled the change a cost-saving exercise, and claim that it is done in the name of fairness. The Minister stated in a letter that

“the Government believes that it is right that, when they can, homeowners should repay this financial help they receive from taxpayers to accrue an asset, which may increase in value over time,”

However, it comes at the cost of forcing people to take on repayment of a new and unforeseen loan. At the same time, housing benefit can be paid to private landlords, who are able to pay their mortgages from taxpayer money given to tenants in receipt of housing benefit, without any of the associated requirements to repay. Even the Government and the Minister may agree that that is slightly hypocritical—it is not in keeping with the new term, the loan. The change in policy is causing extreme stress to already vulnerable individuals, in addition to forcing them to pay interest out of benefits that are designed to cover basic costs of living.

That was the case for my constituent, Alistair Dickson from Stonebyres, who was in receipt of the support for mortgage interest benefit. Mr Dickson was registered as blind at work and, as a result, had to leave his job. He receives employment support allowance and disability living allowance, and has been paying his mortgage and home insurance from those payments. As a result, his household budgets are extremely tight, and it is very important to him to be able to stay in his own home. This is where he has adapted to his new circumstances as a blind person, and where he feels safe. My constituent is unable to leave the house as often as he used to as a result of his disability, so that is where he feels most comfortable. He is aware that, financially, it would be easier for him to move into rented accommodation, but that would not offer the same security, comfort or familiarity as his own home. That is therefore not an option for him. I do not believe he is alone.

Tens of thousands of disabled people, people with long-term illnesses, and pensioners who had previously claimed support for mortgage interest but who have declined to take up a loan, are in the same position. They do not know where they will scrape together the money for their mortgages. They do not know if they should pack up their homes, downsize or go into rented accommodation. They do not know whether their only option is to take out a questionable Government loan. All they do know is that that terrible policy decision has been made, putting into jeopardy their ability to maintain their own home. On their behalf, therefore, I ask the Government to pause and reconsider an ill-designed policy change to ensure that they do not penalise homeowners.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend gives an excellent constituent example. Does she agree that many constituents across the UK found themselves getting a surprise letter from Serco, which caused fear and alarm across the board in people affected by this policy?

[Angela Crawley]

The Government’s decision to have Serco institute this policy seems rather absurd given its recent bad press. Again, I must ask the Government to pause and reconsider this ill-designed policy change, and make sure that we do not penalise homeowners for changes to their circumstances that are beyond their control. Will the Government consider that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I do not accept that sending people to Citizens Advice or the Money Advice Service for advice is irresponsible. That is exactly what those organisations are there to do, and they do it very well on a daily basis. Do not forget that the six weeks are from the loan offer—the point at which someone says in principle that they would like to have a loan. They then have six weeks in which to decide, execute the documents and send them back. There is a whole period before that in which people gather information and discuss the matter with their financial advisers and, indeed, with Serco if they need more information on which to make a decision. Do not forget that the communication process started in July last year, so it has been ongoing for quite a while, and tens of thousands of people have successfully made a decision either way.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister seems to indicate that affected individuals receive correspondence from his Department before the Serco letter. That is not what my constituents tell me, so will he place that correspondence in the Library for us to review?

[Kit Malthouse]

No, people do not receive correspondence prior to the Serco letter. An initial letter and an information booklet are sent out by Serco to warm them up to the change that is coming, and there is then a variety of follow-up information. Once someone has had all the information and thinks they are in a position to make a decision, they are in effect handed over to the operations people in the Department, who proceed to execute the loan—or otherwise—and load them on to the system for payment. As I said, tens of thousands of people have successfully made the transition, and many people are now receiving payment of the new support for mortgage interest.

I want to move on to a couple of other issues. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East mentioned vulnerable recipients. We have taken particular care over those who are vulnerable and those who might not have the mental capacity to make financial decisions on their own. In those cases, the timeframe for execution, resolution and transition has been significantly extended. We are working with people either who we know are vulnerable or who were identified during the process as vulnerable to ensure that they have an appointed financial adviser, deputy or whatever it might be to make those financial decisions for them. That process is much longer; we are able to extend it to be pretty much as long as they need to make the position clear.

The hon. Lady raised a particular constituency case. I urge her to reassure her constituents that the new scheme is designed to maintain them in their home. On a day-to-day basis they will see absolutely no change whatsoever. They can stay in that home for as long as they like—for the rest of their natural life. The only change for them is if they sell that house or it is inherited by someone following their death and there is any equity in the house, the accumulated loan will be recovered from the proceeds. If there is no equity, we write the loan off. Do not forget that it is a very low-cost loan: the interest we charge is the same as that charged to the Government on their debt. It is in statute that it is a low-rate loan. We recognise that this is a disruption and change for people, but as we take the scheme forward we will try to make it as painless as possible.

We expect that a number of people will decide not to take the loan but to try to go it on their own, making their own mortgage payments. We are hearing anecdotally that people are either managing to make the rest of their mortgage payments or turning to family for assistance. However, if in three or four months’ time they do not think it is manageable, they think they have got themselves into trouble or they are in arrears on their mortgage because they have not been able to make payments, it is open to them to come back to us and reapply for SMI. If they are in trouble, we will be perfectly willing to backdate that to the date of change for them, to 6 or 7 April, to clear their arrears and ensure that we do not put anyone in a difficult position.

I stress that this change is about increasing sustainability and fairness, balancing the interests of the taxpayer against those of someone who is in extremis and needs assistance but nevertheless is in ownership of what could be a very valuable capital asset. In other parts of the benefit system, we do not necessarily allow people to accumulate capital assets. If someone applies for housing benefit, we look at their assets and if they have between £6,000 and £16,000 in cash in the bank, whatever it is that affects it. SMI is specifically about protecting people’s homes and ensuring that they are maintained in those homes for the long term.

Universal Credit and Terminal Illness

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

I agree entirely that a change of pace is needed and that an attempt must be made to adopt towards people put in these positions a genuinely sympathetic approach and to demonstrate an empathy for what they are going through that has been sadly missing.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend has described the situation on the Highland Council. Could he enlighten the House as to who is picking up the slack for universal credit? Is it local authorities, food banks and other charities?

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend rightly answers his own question. It is indeed the local authorities, the food banks and the local charities, as well as those serving the community by supporting people in these positions. During the transfer to full service, our constituency office was swamped with universal credit issues.

Scottish Welfare Powers

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Scottish welfare powers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I extend my thanks to Members from both sides of the House who have turned out to debate this important issue for Scotland.

The Scotland Act 2016, which was delivered by a Conservative Government to the people of Scotland to implement the recommendations of the Smith Commission, has elevated the Scottish Parliament to one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world. It has unprecedented power at its disposal, including over some welfare and social security elements. I am proud of my party’s record on devolution. It is the Conservatives who are delivering on devolution. It is this party that gave the Scottish Parliament the powers to top up existing benefits, make discretionary payments and even create entirely new benefits. In total, the Government have devolved 30% of working-age benefits in full, meaning that Scotland has significant control over its welfare system. The question now is how those powers are used.

Between the powers held by this Parliament and those rightly held in Holyrood, the welfare system in Scotland should, I believe, be based on three overarching principles. First, we must always ensure that adequate support is available for the most vulnerable in our communities, and we are rightly proud that in this country we have a system designed to offer a safety net to those who need it most. Secondly, any welfare system must be flexible and, where possible, personalised. Far too often we approach these debates with a singular focus on numbers and statistics. We must remember that behind every one of those numbers is an individual or a family with their own set of unique circumstances, and any welfare system must be able to work for each and every one of them.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for most kindly giving way on my birthday. Does he believe that social security is also a human right?

[Bill Grant]

That is an interesting question. We cannot see people going without entirely, so yes, I would lean towards its being a human right. Social security is a safety net that in this country, and in Scotland, we can be proud of providing, and I hope that we are able to do so for a long time to come, through a good, strong economy and people in employment.

The third principle is that the welfare system should give those who can and want to work the opportunity to do so. That is an essential part of its modernisation. It has rightly been the guiding principle of welfare reforms across the UK in recent years, and we should not underestimate the dignity and sense of fulfilment that accompany employment.

It is with those principles that I have approached the debate today, but one further important requirement underpins them all, which is that the system works. That sounds very simple and easy, but I am increasingly concerned that the Scottish Government are simply not moving fast enough to ensure that it does. Hundreds of thousands of people receive the benefits, so it is vital that the devolution of powers is delivered safely and in an orderly way. It is vital also that people know what will happen under the new system, that the Scottish Government think through policy properly and that they have the structures up and running to take over the important responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Grant]

I will not be the referee on what is right or wrong in the report, but the truth will be in there somewhere.

Most worryingly, the detail we have from the SNP simply has the look of an attempt to move away from Westminster systems and be different just for the sake of it. Take disability benefit assessments, for example. One of the first and only changes that the SNP has announced is over the role of the private sector in those assessments. It has yet to justify that approach, and I am not clear what the actual benefits will be.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman is being most generous in giving way. Is the role of the private sector in assessments not best covered by the recent Work and Pensions Committee report, which documented individual men being told by the DWP that they were in actual fact pregnant? Does that not tell us that there is something wrong with the private sector dealing with assessments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Grant]

It might be my Scots accent that is causing an issue, because I did not indicate that. I said that the welfare system is generally dependent on those who earn money and pay tax, but there is a middle group. There are those who earn and who are not dependent on the welfare system, and those who are wholly dependent on it and are perfectly entitled to that support. The hon. Lady is right that there is a middle group where there is a balance of work with tax credits and assistance, and that is to be welcomed.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Grant]

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I want to make a wee bit of progress. Just like the policies themselves, there is little detail on future costs. It is important that we know how much things will cost and how taxpayers will be expected to fund the Scottish system. Are we going to see yet more tax rises for the people of Scotland, or will other services begin to see cuts? My Scottish Conservative colleagues and I have spoken regularly in this place about the need for Scotland’s two Governments to work effectively together, and that is true for welfare.

[Bill Grant]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I certainly hope that there are efficiency savings in that regard, but I am a bit sceptical.

Take universal credit, for example. The Scottish Government have made use of the flexibilities available, and they are well within their rights to do so, but consultation and information sharing with the DWP could be much better. In Scotland, claimants can choose to have the housing element of their universal credit paid directly to landlords. In England, the DWP does not simply pay people money and turn its back on them. If somebody has fallen two months in arrears with rent payments, a UK-wide system of alternative payment arrangements is triggered and rent can be paid, where needed, directly to landlords. It is best if individuals can manage their own money to match the working environment. It is important that they are allowed to manage their own money where they can and that there is a system to support them.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. In terms of flexibilities, does he not accept the evidence that has been given to the Work and Pensions Committee, and to the consultations on the Social Security (Scotland) Bill, is that those moving on to universal credit who have been in work are paid weekly and fortnightly. The majority are paid that way, not four-weekly.

[Bill Grant]

I think I have indicated in the debate today that flexibility is a good thing. I welcome such things for people until they, for want of a more elegant phrase, get on to an even keel. It is a support system; it is not a permanent system. Where the system would benefit from flexibility, I welcome that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. So far we have been subjected to what one can only call buzzword bingo. I am only waiting on one from either the Labour or Conservative Benches.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) complained, on the one hand, that not enough was being done and then, on the other hand, complained about what has already been announced. It is incredible behaviour. It can be summed up like this: the UN committee on the rights of persons with disabilities has criticised the UK Government for grave and systematic violations of the conventions on the rights of persons with disabilities and, at the same time, it has praised the Scottish Government for engaging with disabled people and the organisations that represent them.

If we are building a social security system—not a welfare system as the Conservatives talk about, as if it is some sort of handout—

[Stephen Kerr]

No. That is not—

[Chris Stephens]

It is not a handout; it is a human right. Language is important. The hon. Member for Stirling can shout all he likes—it is social security we should be talking about, not welfare. That is a big difference between my party and his in terms of how we view the issues. We need to ensure—

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Drew Hendry.