Oral Answers to Questions

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee for his question. We are working out the details and I would be very happy to discuss with him the details of when we will roll out the trials quite shortly.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The so-called yellow card pilot scheme is an admission by the Government that the sanctions regime is not working and that, in particular, it is badly failing people with serious mental illnesses. Why are the Government waiting until next year to introduce the pilot scheme? In the meantime, will they please just stop sanctioning people who are seriously ill?

[Priti Patel]

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady. Claimants are asked to meet only reasonable requirements, taking into account their circumstances. As the pilots get under way, I think she will find that this is about how we can integrate support for claimants and, importantly, provide them with the support and guidance to help them get back to work.

[Dr Whiteford]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, but the reality is that people with mental health problems are being disproportionately sanctioned, and that has been evident for some time. Why will the Government not listen to voices across the House, including those on the Work and Pensions Committee, and subject the sanctions regime to a full independent review?

[Priti Patel]

I would make a few points to the hon. Lady. For a start, the Government have been listening and we have responded to the Work and Pensions Committee, which is why we will be trialling and piloting the new scheme. I reiterate my earlier comment: our staff are trained to support claimants with mental health conditions and there is no evidence to suggest that such claimants are being sanctioned more than anybody else. We provide the support through our jobcentres and our claimants are asked to meet only reasonable requirements.

Welfare Benefit Changes

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Dr Eilidh Whiteford.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I thought I was to sum up, Mr Pritchard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I thank you for calling me a second time, Mr Pritchard. I am pleased to take part in this afternoon’s wide-ranging debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on bringing the issues forward so eloquently. The debate has, however, presented a sorry picture of the impact of the Government’s welfare reforms across the UK. Above all, it has brought home the point that austerity is not working; the Government are simply attacking low-income families, disabled people and those with long-term health conditions, while giving tax breaks to the very wealthiest.

We have heard today that children will be among those most severely impacted by the changes to tax credits in the new Welfare Reform and Work Bill, currently undergoing legislative scrutiny, but it is important to understand that the new measures are only the latest in a long line of assaults on the most disadvantaged people in our society.

Research on the cumulative impact of the reforms that have already been enacted, published by Sheffield Hallam University in February this year, calculated that by 2018 incomes in Scotland will have been reduced by £1.5 billion a year, or £440 for every adult of working age. According to the House of Commons Library, the current round of reforms in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill will take an estimated further £900 million a year from the lowest income households, and the heaviest losses will be sustained by families with children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said so powerfully, child poverty has long-term consequences. It cannot be fixed some years later with a magic bullet; it has a long-term impact on people’s life chances and life expectancy.

In Scotland, almost 200,000 families and 346,000 children are going to lose out because of changes to tax credits. The Resolution Foundation has pointed out that the vast majority of those children live in working families, and it expects that across the UK the changes to tax credits alone are going to push 200,000 more children into poverty by 2016, rising to 300,000 by 2020. Far from making work pay, the changes to tax credits for people already on low wages are going to entrench in-work poverty, not address it.

It is important to remember that the welfare reforms that have been implemented are having a hugely detrimental impact on thousands of people already hit by earlier reforms. We are seeing some of those effects much more clearly than we have until now—certainly more than we did at the time of their implementation.

Arguably, the most distressing symptom of the failure of welfare reform is the explosion of food bank use right across these islands. In Scotland, food bank use rose by two thirds last year alone. The Trussell Trust distributed 36,000 food parcels to children in Scotland, and that represents only some of the food banks operating in our communities. I do not think that is a sufficient or acceptable safety net for children in 21st-century Scotland —frankly, I do not know how Ministers sleep at night. It is very telling that not a single Back-Bench Tory MP is here today to defend the Government’s record. That is shameful.

The two biggest drivers for the unprecedented growth in food bank use are the changes in support for disabled people and those with long-term health problems, and, connected to that, the changes to the conditionality regime. For years now, serious concerns have repeatedly been raised about the work capability assessment for employment and support allowance. It has been an utter shambles.

According to the DWP’s own recent statistical analysis, over half of appealed fit-for-work ESA decisions are overturned. That is an unsustainable and unacceptable level of poor decision making. Moreover, it has led to protracted and costly appeal and tribunal proceedings—processes that place enormous stress on and cause real hardship to sick and disabled people and those who care for them. In some cases, they have exacerbated people’s health conditions.

The story with personal independence payments is similar, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) pointed out. A number of my constituents waited nearly a year for a PIP assessment, and so far, 20% of mandatory reconsiderations of PIP have resulted in a different decision being made. Under the previous contractor, Atos, the Government spent around £60 million a year on around 600,000 appeals against Atos decisions. A new contractor is now in place, but unless the Government actually change what they ask these companies to assess, and how, it is hard to see how Maximus is going to do any better than its predecessor.

A key problem has been that the complex medical histories of some claimants have not been consistently sought or considered adequately in a process that has been focused on functionality.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Given that the hon. Lady is on this point, I should briefly highlight that when there was a movement from the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, there were instructions out that the Government expected 20% fewer people to be on PIP.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Those people still have those conditions to live with, in many cases, and their condition has not got any better. It is just that it has become more difficult for them to deal with their condition. The problem has been particularly acute for people with fluctuating conditions and mental health problems—illnesses that are perhaps not immediately visible. The Multiple Sclerosis Society has pointed out that 39% of its members who were surveyed said that their ESA assessments had not taken account of additional evidence.

I have raised this issue with Ministers many times, particularly in relation to mental health. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly raised the tragic case of Michael O’Sullivan, following a ruling by the coroner concluding that a decision made in relation to his ESA was a major factor in his death. This man committed suicide after having been found fit for work by the Government’s assessors in 2013, but sadly this is not an isolated case.

Some time ago, I raised the case of a woman known as Ms DE, whose suicide in 2011 was the subject of an investigation by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. Ms DE took her own life after scoring zero points in a work capability assessment made in the absence of an ESA50 form and without any additional information from her clinicians. The only information her assessor had about her condition was a single word, “depression”, which in her case masked a long and very complicated psychiatric history. Both her general practitioner and her consultant psychiatrist considered her unfit for work at the time of her death, even though she had worked for most of her adult life and wanted to go back to work. The distress caused by her benefits assessment may have played a role in her suicide. The investigation concluded that there was “no other known trigger” for the events that took place.

Those two cases have been properly investigated and fully documented, but they are unlikely to be isolated. I have had to learn to deal with constituents coming to me expressing suicidal feelings because of their experiences in the assessment process, and I am certainly not qualified to give them the kind of support that they clearly need. As an MP, all I can really do is point them in the direction of the appropriate services and try to help them to work their way through state bureaucracy. However, just at a human level, I do not think anyone can fail to be moved or to understand that we have a fundamental problem in this process. It is not treating people with the basic dignity that they require.

The shortcomings of the assessment system are leading directly to the problems experienced with the new sanctions regime. There has been considerable evidence for some time now that, for example, those with mental health conditions are being disproportionately sanctioned. Again, that chimes with the anecdotal evidence that I am sure many MPs here today will have seen at first hand—of very unwell people simply falling through the social safety net.

Recent figures published by the DWP on the sanctions regime show that in nearly 50% of reviewed cases, decisions are being reversed. We see a system that is not working efficiently, and again, we see horrendous social consequences for people who are ill and, in some cases, really very vulnerable. Once again, taking better account of individuals’ medical histories and getting the decisions right in the first place would prevent the stress, hardship and anxiety of sick and vulnerable people falling foul of the sanctions regime and finding themselves stigmatised, vilified and castigated simply for being unwell.

We need a root-and-branch review of the sanctions regime. In the last Parliament, the cross-party Work and Pensions Committee recognised that, as have countless external bodies representing those living with health problems. Will the Minister today please just bite the bullet, go back to the drawing board on the sanctions regime and recognise the links to the inadequacies in the assessment process?

I have already talked about the Government Benches; when I look around the Chamber, I am also struck by the number of Members who have spoken from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland this afternoon. I think that reflects the differential impact that welfare reform is having on the devolved Administrations. I also think it probably reflects a very different political ethos, but we will leave that for another day.

The Scottish Government have tried to protect those most affected by welfare reforms, providing over £300 million to mitigate the worst excesses of the changes; notably, that has mitigated the bedroom tax, maintained council tax benefit for half a million people and established the welfare fund. However, what we really need are economic powers and the powers over social security fully in the hands of our Parliament so that we can tackle the causes, not just the symptoms, of poverty and disadvantage.

I am sorry that so far the Government have voted against any moves to devolve really meaningful powers, betraying the promises made just over a year ago, but I hope that when we do have chance very shortly to debate these matters again, the Government will take the opportunity to accept some amendments that have been proposed, if only to reverse the damage that is going to be done to poor households through changes to tax credits.

The Government’s welfare reforms have bitten very deep already into the incomes of very poor people. It is important to remember that this Parliament has a responsibility to all its citizens—not just the rich people and those old enough to vote. We have to make sure that we do not abandon those people, because we have a responsibility to them, and we need a fairer social security system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is very clear: that issue has been addressed and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made some very clear statements. I bring the hon. Lady back to the overall question, which is about people with deteriorating health conditions. This Government are committed to supporting the vulnerable and have put in place a great deal of support to help those with deteriorating health conditions manage their conditions and, where they can, get back into work.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Deteriorating health is one of the main reasons why people are unable to work, but we now know that about 90 people every month over the past three years have died within a short time after having been assessed as fit for work and losing their social security benefits. Does the Minister accept that the assessment process for determining whether someone is fit for work is simply not fit for purpose?

[Priti Patel]

Let me be clear that the Department recently published fully quality-assured age-standardised mortality statistics, in line with Office for National Statistics requirements and to national statistics standard. It is wrong to state that people have died while claiming an out-of-work benefit and, for the record, it is impossible and completely wrong to draw any causality from the statistics. Any attempt to extrapolate anything beyond those figures is wrong, and two national newspapers that tried to do that have just published an apology for their incorrect reporting of the statistics.

[Dr Whiteford]

I do think Ministers need to take their head out of the sand, because it is clear that they are abdicating responsibility for very sick people. It has also emerged over the summer that almost half the people appealing against sanction decisions—more than 285,000 people—have been successful. I suspect that a large proportion of those people have serious health problems. Will the Minister finally listen to the cross-party calls for a full-scale review of the sanctions regime and commit to that review this afternoon?

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

When the Chancellor delivered his Budget speech yesterday, he made the oft-repeated claim that the

“best route out of poverty is work.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 333.]

That was probably true once, but it is no longer true—it has not been true for a number of years. The truth today is that, for millions of low-paid workers, poverty persists no matter how many hours or how hard they work. For people who are bringing up children on low or, indeed, average incomes, the costs of housing and of childcare mean that they are running to stand still. I have said before in this House that in-work poverty is the great scandal of our age. Sadly, very little was announced yesterday to tackle the underlying drivers that are stifling the opportunities and aspirations of the working poor.

Instead, we learned that the axe of the £12 billion-worth of cuts will fall most heavily on low and middle-income families. Last week the Government announced changes to the way in which child poverty is measured. Having heard yesterday’s announcements, it is not hard to understand why they did that, because the lowering of the threshold for tax credits and other changes announced yesterday will take income largely from the pockets of working parents and compound the projected increases in child poverty arising from the last round of cuts.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Housing and childcare matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so does the hon. Lady agree that, if there are structural imbalances, they need to be dealt with by the Scottish Parliament?

[Dr Whiteford]

I am sure that the hon. Lady is well aware that Scotland’s childcare offer is significantly better than that enjoyed by people in other parts of the UK, and that our housing situation is not exacerbated by real rent imbalances similar to those experienced in London and the south-east of England in particular. I will pick up on that later.

The hon. Lady will also be aware that the Scottish block grant is calculated on the basis of the contents of the Red Book. The money currently allocated to Scotland is determined by this Chamber, so this Budget is relevant to everybody throughout the UK. It would be very wrong to ignore the fact that the purse strings are still controlled here, and that is one of the reasons why I argue for those powers to be sent up the road to Scotland, where we can use them more wisely.

I want to return to the issue of child poverty and the paper exercises conducted to measure it. Whatever we do to massage the figures, I do not think any of us can avoid the evidence of our own eyes in our constituencies. We are seeing growth in child poverty on the ground. We see it in the rise of food banks, which have already been alluded to, and in the larger number of people coming through MPs’ doors with income-related problems. That is also being experienced by advice bureaux. We also see it in the evidence of organisations that work directly with vulnerable families and those on low incomes.

In my constituency, one in five children is growing up in poverty. That might come as a surprise, because we enjoy some of the lowest unemployment in the whole country. A very small percentage of people are not in work, but many thousands of people are in low-paid work, and it is those working poor who are going to be most affected by what was announced yesterday.

More families than ever are running to stand still, and under this Government more people are being left behind. The UK has a deeply polarised labour market, and the ability of people in low-paid work to get ahead is severely curtailed.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not give way at the moment.

Amid all the rhetoric and the hyperbole of Budget day, it would have been very easy to form the impression from the media lines being trotted out yesterday that tax credits are predominantly a benefit paid to unemployed people, when in fact the opposite is the case. In Scotland, the overwhelming majority of tax credits are paid to working people. In fact, half of all families benefit from tax credits, and 95% of tax credits in Scotland are paid to families with children. We should make no mistake about where the cuts are being targeted.

It is inevitable that today we will consider the short-term consequences, because those cuts will put acute pressure on families, but we should be under no illusion: growing up in poverty has serious long-term consequences for children, too. It is associated with poorer educational attainment, poorer job prospects, poorer health throughout life and lower life expectancy. That is why asking families to bear the brunt of the cuts is so short-sighted. It has not only an enormous social cost, but an enormous economic cost: it holds back our economic progress and productivity, which are what we should really be focusing on and trying to improve.

The Government have tried to argue, today and yesterday, that the cuts will be offset by increases to the minimum wage and changes to the personal allowance, but that claim simply does not stand up to scrutiny. I think we all welcome the announcement of a long-overdue increase in the minimum wage to £7.20 an hour from next year and, indeed, the changes to national insurance, but let us not kid ourselves that rebranding the minimum wage as a living wage will actually make it a living wage.

There is already a living wage: it is calculated by the Living Wage Foundation and is already used by employers in the public, private and third sectors, including, I am very pleased to say, the Scottish Government. The living wage is based on the actual cost of living and it is already £7.85 an hour outside London and is due to go up again in November. We need to be absolutely clear that £7.20 is not a living wage and it will not offset the cuts in tax credits.

The critical point about the living wage is that it has been calculated on the basis of low-paid workers claiming their full entitlement to tax credits at the present rate, so any cut in tax credits means that the living wage will have to go up even further in order for it to provide enough for people to live on. If the Government take on board only one of the points I make today, I want it to be that one.

[Graham Evans]

Does the hon. Lady want Scotland to be a high wage, low benefits, low tax economy? Does she agree with what the Government are trying to do?

[Dr Whiteford]

Scotland has already shown the progress we are making towards a high-skill economy. I was interested to hear yesterday’s announcement on improving the apprenticeship scheme in England. I hope the Government will aspire to do what the Scottish Government have already done. The uptake has been phenomenal and we are well on course to reaching 30,000 apprenticeships a year, which is far more proportionately per head of population than the current number in England. The Opportunities for All scheme guarantees a place in education or training for every single young person. It has been a phenomenal success, with more than 90% of our young people going into sustained employment afterwards. Instead of waiting until people have been unemployed for a year before intervening, we are intervening early so that every school leaver gets those opportunities. The approach is much more carrot than stick. The scale of the uptake shows that in Scotland we are committed to having a more successful economy and to growing it to meet the needs of our population.

I want to return to tax credits and not be distracted from them. Today the Resolution Foundation, which has done so much to promote the living wage and highlight the issue of in-work poverty, has said that the living wage would need to be £10 an hour by 2020—not the £9 announced yesterday—to keep pace with the cost of living under the new tax and benefits regime. Let us be clear: we are not going to get out of the poverty trap with this rebranded minimum wage. We need to bring it up to the level of a living wage if we are going to take away the support currently provided through tax credits.

The huge cuts in tax credits will make the gap between the minimum wage and the living wage even greater and it will leave the earnings of low-paid workers even further below the actual cost of living. At present, a family with two children where both parents work and who live in a house with average rent will be below the breadline, and the changes announced yesterday will not change that. Such families will still struggle to keep their heads above water and their children will still grow up disadvantaged.

We need to recognise that bringing up children is expensive—for everyone, in all income groups—but children are not some sort of luxury lifestyle accessory. Having children and encouraging family life is an essential, necessary and natural part of the human life cycle. For some years, however, we have made it really difficult for younger adults to even contemplate starting a family, simply because of the pernicious combination of low pay, job insecurity and exorbitant housing costs.

That brings me to the differential impact of this Budget on women, because, in spite of the progress that has been made, women are still heavily concentrated in low-paid work. We are far more likely to be working part-time or in zero-hours jobs, and we are more likely to be the primary carer of children or, indeed, frail or disabled relatives. Too many women end up in low-paid, part-time work such as cashiering or cleaning simply because they can work their hours around their family responsibilities. While I welcome the increase in the personal allowance, we need to recognise that many of those women working part time in low-paid jobs will not see the full benefit of it. Indeed, the key beneficiaries are, of course, higher-rate tax payers like ourselves, and 80% of the benefit of the increase will fall in the upper half of the income spectrum.

I have a number of questions for the Government about limiting tax credits to two children. I am not sure why they would do this—certainly in Scotland, we have a worryingly low birth rate so we should not be trying to deter people from having more children. I ask Ministers for clarification about the basis on which the number of children eligible for support through tax credits will be determined. Will it be a couple’s first two children together, or will children from a previous relationship be counted in the total? What will happen, for example, if a woman has her first child with a partner who already has two children from previous relationship or if a mother’s third child is the father’s first? As anyone who ever runs a constituency surgery will know, these are not abstract questions, and I hope Ministers will address them this afternoon.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not agree that it is absolutely right for those on benefits to make the same choices as hard-working taxpayers, including choices about how large their families should be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

The point I am trying to make is how important it is for us to have children. If our birth rate stays as low as it is, we will be storing up long-term economic problems for ourselves. Scotland has the lowest birth rate in the UK and one of the lowest anywhere in Europe. That is precisely because people know that they have to combine their incomes even to get a starter flat. They do not have room for a baby, they do not know how they would pay for a baby if one parent had to work part time, they do not know how they would be able to continue to pay a mortgage—still less a mortgage on a bigger house—and they do not know how they would pay the rent. People have to make serious choices, but the bigger social picture is that we must absolutely encourage people to have a family and encourage family life.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will make sure that the hon. Lady’s questions are answered in the winding-up speeches, but there are all sorts of provisos involved. If two families are joined, the original child element is kept. Following up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), the six deciles in the middle can end up paying for others to have more children than they can afford themselves. This is a point about fairness: they are the ones paying, but they do not feel that they can afford to have more children themselves.

[Dr Whiteford]

The key point is that a falling birth rate is not good for anybody in whatever decile. Even those of us who do not have children are going to be dependent on the next generation being large enough to support us in our dotage when we need people to come in and look after us. The economics do not stack up. In the context of worryingly low birth-rate projections, we desperately need to encourage and make it easier for people in all deciles to decide whether having children is a possibility for them.

I have to say that I was appalled at the reference on page 88 of the Red Book to

“protections for women who have a third child as the result of rape, or other exceptional circumstances.”

I know this point was picked up yesterday, but I think the implications need to be addressed more thoroughly. It is perhaps important to acknowledge that rapes do not necessarily result in pregnancy. After all, rape is a crime that affects pre-pubescent children and post-menopausal women, as well as people of child-bearing age. How does the DWP intend to establish that a child has been born as a consequence of rape? Will there seriously be a box to tick on the form? Will a criminal conviction against a perpetrator be required?

We know that rape is one of the most unreported and poorly prosecuted serious crimes in the UK, with most surveys suggesting that 85% of women who are raped do not report it—for a variety of reasons, not least because most victims know their assailants and know that securing a conviction is a very long shot under our criminal justice system. Many simply do not want to put themselves through another traumatic ordeal.

I put it to Ministers that the women most likely to become pregnant as a result of rape are those in long-term abusive relationships who are being repeatedly assaulted. They are among those least likely to report rape, and those in the most extreme danger if they do. So I ask again, what will this “protection” mean in practice? How will the DWP arbitrate? Will women be believed? What steps will be taken to preserve their dignity and privacy? I would like to hear some answers to those questions.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that these circumstances could stigmatise the child and run contrary to our obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child?

[Dr Whiteford]

My hon. Friend raises a very pertinent point—we should not be stigmatising children whatever their parentage. This could indeed cause many problems.

Before I conclude, I want to address the lowering of the benefits cap. One aspect that always seems to get lost in the debate is that the main driver of the excessively high benefit payments we see in London, the south-east and a few other hotspots across the UK is excessively high private sector rents. In most cases, the claimant does not see a penny of that money; it goes straight into the pockets of the private sector landlords. This is a very serious problem, but I think the Government are tackling it from entirely the wrong angle. They need to address the chronic under-supply of affordable housing, because until they address that underlying issue, rents will continue to soar and housing—to rent or to buy—will continue to be completely unaffordable for people on low and average incomes, by which I mean people who earn normal wages doing normal jobs. Plans to force housing associations to sell their properties to tenants will only make matters worse.

I remember that when the benefits cap was first introduced, I went to the Library to look at the impact on my own constituency. There was a grand total of three claimants affected, and two of them were people in temporary accommodation—they were in a short-term transitional situation. That was simply because our rental market was not quite so out of control as the rental market in some other parts of the UK.

My main concern about the new benefit cap is that it is entirely arbitrary and will mostly affect people in the private rented sector in high-rent hotspots. Fundamentally, it does not tackle the underlying problem of affordable housing supply, which is one of the main drivers of income poverty right across the UK. Instead, it seems to me that this arbitrary cap will create perverse incentives for people to move to areas or stay in areas of low economic growth where housing is more affordable but jobs are thinner on the ground. That gets us to the heart of the problem with this Budget. It puts a desperate squeeze on low and middle-income families, but there is little in the Budget to boost productivity. There is nothing to give Scotland a competitive advantage or give us a jobs boost. Instead, those who have already carried the can for the banking collapse of 2008 will stay trapped in work that does not pay.

Austerity has been a failed policy. It has held back our economic recovery and has harmed the most disadvantaged people. That is why we need powers over our economy, our employment and our benefits system to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, where we can use them to build a more successful and a more equitable country that is in everyone’s long-term interest.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I rise today to congratulate the Chancellor on his Budget. His amazing job yesterday is warmly welcomed by most of the country. I am disappointed to follow the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), who said that the Budget will make no difference—he probably said the same thing about previous Budgets brought in by the same Chancellor. Surely unemployment is down in his constituency; I cannot believe that it has gone up. What did his Government do, in all the years they were in power, to help people in the north-east? They did not do anything, which is why there have been problems. This Government, though, have made a difference.

I am also disappointed to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). I found it astonishing that she should be advocating that people on benefits should be allowed to have—encouraged to have—more than two children. Completely responsible people who recognise that children are expensive to bring up and cannot afford to because they are not on benefits subsidise those who the hon. Lady would like to have three, four or five children. That is completely mad.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Lady completely misrepresents what I actually said and what the record will show I said. The point I was trying to make was that half of all families in Scotland receive tax credits, a huge majority of whom are in work. They are people who work extremely hard.

[Pauline Latham]

I recognise that most people getting tax credits are in work, but I still do not believe that people who are in work, not receiving tax credits, acting responsibly and having the number of children they can afford should be subsidising those who want to have more children. That is completely topsy-turvy economics; perhaps it is how some Opposition Members from Scotland deal with economics there, but it is not what we want to do here in London. I am very disappointed by the hon. Lady’s attitude, and I feel that she completely misrepresents what the Government are doing.

I congratulate the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on doing a fantastic job in bringing the welfare budget under control. It was not under control for many, many years—it was completely out of control, which is one reason why this country got into such difficulty with the deficit.

Child Poverty

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree. The whole point is that we want to eradicate child poverty. This is not a departure from that proposal. However, we want to ensure that we do that by changing the long-term life chances of those who live in the poorest families. I do not want to have to stand here year after year and pretend that rotating people over the line of median income somehow means that we have succeeded. I said three or four years ago that child poverty had fallen under us according to that measure, but I said that I made no claim to have done that. The previous Government crashed the economy, which is why child poverty fell.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Over 210,000 children in Scotland are living in poverty, which is more than one in five, and two thirds of them have working parents. The report published earlier today by the UK’s Children’s Commissioners makes it clear that this Government are failing to protect the most disadvantaged children from their austerity cuts. Why will the Secretary of State not back calls for powers over employment and social security to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament so that we can take more effective action there to tackle poverty?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The devolved Administration in Scotland are getting powers over employment, because the Work programme and personal independence payments are being devolved, so they will have the powers to do that. In fact, the significant new powers in the Scotland Bill will give something like £2.5 billion-worth of new welfare powers to the devolved Administration, and they will be responsible for raising more than 50% of what they spend. On the basis of what I said earlier, I am happy to engage with the devolved Administrations on what measure they want to use, because they will have the capacity to decide either to continue with that measure or to change it in line with ours.

Scotland Bill

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Allen]

Unlike the hon. Lady, I never mistake the interests of the Scottish people for the interests of the Scottish National party. Those of us who believe in devolution can unite with those who believe in the separation and break-up of the Union because we will all be better off if we put the interests of the Scottish people first and learn the lessons that they can teach the rest of the nations of the Union.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I shall speak to amendments 115, 116, 117 and 131, tabled in my names and the names of my colleagues, and in support of amendments that have been jointly tabled by Labour and SNP Members, including amendment 48 and new clause 31. All the amendments would strengthen the provisions in relation to the benefits system and bring it more closely in line with the Smith commission recommendations. We should remember that those recommendations were agreed by all five main political parties in Scotland and reflect the democratic demand of our people for the power to make decisions in Scotland for Scotland.

The amendments would improve our social security system by ensuring that it is tailored to our needs and circumstances and fits our policy objectives. That in turn will enhance governance and strengthen democratic accountability in Scotland and make a real difference to the lives our citizens.

It is worth restating that paragraph 49 of the Smith agreement recommended that powers should be devolved on benefits for carers, disabled people and those who are sick—attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, disability living allowance, personal independence payments, industrial injuries disablement allowance and severe disablement allowance. The agreement also recommended devolution of the benefits that currently comprise the regulated social fund—cold weather payments, funeral payments, Sure Start maternity grants and winter fuel payments, as well as discretionary housing payments. It proposed that new arrangements for the Motability scheme in Scotland for DLA and PIP claimants should be agreed.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I welcome what the hon. Lady is saying. Looking at amendment 117, is the SNP really turning its face against conditionality and the focus on work in the benefits system in favour of a system in which, even if someone does not turn up to see the adviser and is sanctioned, they still get the benefit? How can that be right?

[Dr Whiteford]

On the very last day of the last Parliament, if the hon. Gentleman remembers, the Work and Pensions Committee—with a majority of coalition Members—called for a root-and-branch review of the sanctions regime. The reason why it did that should be self-evident to every Member of the House. We have seen repeatedly how the most vulnerable people in our communities fall foul of that sanctions regime. People with mental health problems and single parents are being disproportionately sanctioned. Members of Parliament can turn up five minutes late to meetings all over this place and do not lose their pay, so why should the most vulnerable and the disabled be subject to sanctions? I agree with the Work and Pensions Committee, which twice in the last Parliament called for a root-and-branch review. We could do so much better in Scotland.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[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?

[Dr Whiteford]

I entirely agree. The democratic will of the Scottish people over the past few years from the 2011 elections and again more recently—just look around this Chamber—is very clear. They want an alternative to austerity and a fairer social security system.

I am keen to highlight new clause 31, which I hope we will have an opportunity to vote on later. If Labour do not press it to the vote, we will. It gives explicit power to create new benefits in devolved areas, giving effect to that Smith agreement recommendation, and it could be used to improve the support offered to carers. I am pleased that there is a great deal of consensus on the Opposition Benches about the need to move that forward.

Inclusion Scotland, one of the leading networks of disabled people’s organisations in Scotland, has expressed support for amendment 48, and Carers UK and Carers Scotland have said that they welcome

“the flexibility for the Scottish Government to define the terms of the new ‘Carers benefit’ as it provides the Scottish Government with an opportunity to improve carers’ benefits in Scotland.”

That is why there is that degree of consensus on the Opposition Benches. Carers are understandably concerned about the speculation on where the Chancellor’s £12 billion of social security cuts will fall. We know that carers and the disabled people they support are likely to see further squeezes on their already squeezed incomes. These amendments offer an opportunity to consider alternatives.

In Scotland we realised some years ago that carers are integral to meeting the long-term challenges we face in delivering health and community care. Unpaid and family carers are the backbone of the community care system and they are irreplaceable; they are part of the solution to meeting our social care challenges. Since the advent of devolution the Scottish Parliament has pioneered policies that have improved support for carers and those receiving care in the community, but when carers fail to get the support that they need to continue to care, the pressures on our public services become far less manageable.

It is worth pointing out that the positive policies for carers pursued in Scotland under existing devolved powers contrast sharply with what we have seen from Westminster over recent years. Particularly over the past few years, I have met carers under increasing strain because of the failures of the work capability assessment and the implementation problems that have accompanied the personal independence payment regime. One of the consequences of someone losing benefit because of inadequate assessment procedures is often a big knock-on financial impact on carers, who find themselves having to support their relative financially, as well as providing practical care. Also, in the absence of other support, the intensity of the care they have to provide often increases.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I find the hon. Lady’s speech very illuminating, particularly on carers, an issue close to my heart and that of my constituents. However, a thought occurs to me: is not the real agenda to turn back the clock on benefit reform, effectively ending accountability for those claiming benefits and allowing a return to rampant welfarism, which destroys communities and keeps people trapped in dependency?

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention demonstrates that he has completely failed to understand my point—that carers are holding up our social care system. They are providers of care, not benefit recipients. They stop the state having to look after people who would otherwise require considerably more support from the NHS and from community care services. Let us not pretend that carers are a drain on our resources. They are a resource on which we are hugely dependent. Let us face it. The support that we give to carers in no way compensates for the care that they provide for free. [Interruption.]

When carers stop being able to care—often because their own health has been severely compromised—our local authorities and the NHS find themselves having to make—[Interruption.]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Let us have one debate at a time. If hon. Members wish to intervene, they should indicate that. Thank you.

[Dr Whiteford]

The point I was trying to make is that when carers’ own health is compromised, that puts an enormous strain on our local authorities and our NHS. They have to make more crisis interventions, which are costly in human and in financial terms.

There is no doubt in my mind that we can and we must do better for sick people, disabled people and their carers, and that with more effective devolution we can align policy more closely with areas such as health and social care that are already devolved and that are most relevant for carers. What this amendment, like others, really comes down to is who can be trusted to safeguard carers’ interests: a Tory Government with one lonely Scottish Tory MP, or the Scottish Parliament which is democratically representative, accessible and accountable to the people it serves. A clear majority of the people of Scotland have indicated their support for substantial and meaningful delivery of those powers as they were set out in the Smith agreement, as have key stakeholder groups.

I know that the Secretary of State takes a personal interest in support for carers, and I urge him to listen and to accept these amendments that will move us a small step closer to what was promised, and will make a big difference to people’s lives.

Amendments 116 and 117 relate to the proposed powers over discretionary housing payments, other discretionary payments and the sanctions regime. Our clear view is that the proposed powers over discretionary housing payments in clause 22 fail to deliver the Smith commission recommendation for autonomy because they are subject to various restrictions. As the Scottish Government said in their response to the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee’s interim report on the draft Scotland Bill clauses,

“the exclusion of the ability to make payments where the need arises from the impact of UK Government policies on conditionality and sanctions constrains the effectiveness of these powers in providing necessary support to key groups”.

Our amendments would remove some of these constraints, including those relating to sanctions, which we have already discussed, and bring the Bill into line with the Smith recommendations in relation to when discretionary housing payments and other discretionary payments and assistance can be made.

I very much welcome the support of Labour Members for amendment 115, which enables the provision of assistance in forms other than cash, for benefits related to maternity, funeral and heating expenses. That might seem quite a small thing, but I am sure that many Members will share my experience of people presenting themselves in the constituency office at half-past four on a Friday afternoon facing a weekend with no money and no electricity. Often they have spent the day battling bureaucracy and have come to the MP as a last-ditch attempt to get assistance when all else has failed. Often we can secure emergency food parcels through local church food banks, or access emergency power cards.

This amendment would enable non-cash provision such as power cards or, in the case of funeral payments when people’s bank accounts can be frozen in the event of a sudden death, emergency support for people who are in a very difficult situation. Thanks to innovative technology there are now clever ways to deliver emergency support through mobile phones, which is particularly useful in rural areas such as mine, where there are ever fewer banks and post offices in villages, and those that remain keep ever more limited hours. If people can receive support on a mobile phone that can then be used in their local shop, it provides a lifeline to those most vulnerable and in need of emergency support.

Amendment 131 would amend clause 23 and extend the power of the Scottish Government to provide support in exceptional circumstances. This issue has been raised by the Child Poverty Action Group, which points out that exception 8 is narrowly drafted and does not include families under exceptional pressure among the categories of those potentially eligible for

“occasional financial or other assistance”.

This group is currently eligible for community care grants under the interim Scottish welfare fund and was also eligible for the predecessor social fund administered by the DWP. Failure to reference this group in the Bill and put beyond doubt the protection of families under exceptional pressure as a priority group in their own right could put the health and wellbeing of some of the most vulnerable families at risk. I very much hope that the Secretary of State will look sympathetically at this amendment and accept it. I look forward to the Government’s response.

A letter in The Herald today signed by 12 leading third sector organisations in Scotland points to the concern among charities and civil Scotland about just how damaging the next round of welfare cuts will be. They are right to say that those least able to cope are likely to be hit the hardest. Today MPs have an opportunity to strengthen the Bill so that it lives up to the recommendations of the Smith commission. This would enable us to shape a fairer future for Scotland’s social security system and bring more of those welfare decisions and the levers to grow our economy into the hands of the Scottish Parliament.

This Tory Government have shown time and again that they cannot be trusted with social security. They seem utterly determined to press ahead with eye-watering further cuts of £12 billion. Scotland’s charities are making it clear today that the axe should not be falling on the least well-off in our society but should be shared more equitably.

At the general election the SNP received an unprecedented mandate to speak up for Scotland, and today I am asking Westminster to listen, to live up to the spirit and intent of the Smith commission with regard to welfare, and to deliver the powers we need to shape a social security system that supports and empowers people when hard times hit, rather than punishing them. These amendments take a step in the right direction, and I hope that the Government will accept them.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I welcome the huge transfer of welfare and tax powers set out in the Bill, but I want to make one point about conditionality. Over the past 15 years or so one of the insights that has struck in the field of work and pensions and welfare is the idea that tackling poverty is not just about benefits; it is also about helping people into work, education and skills and removing barriers to work. Conditionality is part of that process, and it was introduced by Labour. It says to the taxpayer and benefit recipients, “Look, if we pay huge amounts of money to train a cadre of people in the jobcentres, if we hire expert companies to advise jobseekers and if we involve the disability groups in the process, as taxpayers we are making a big investment in trying to help people into work and end the dependency culture.”

Therefore, is it really right for somebody who has been offered an opportunity to go to the jobcentre for an advice session or training not to attend and not to explain why? When they are sanctioned, is it really right for us to say, “Oh, that doesn’t matter, because the taxpayer can just pay the bill and there will be no consequences at all”? That would be the effect of the two amendments that would take out the guts of clauses 22 and 23 and remove conditionality.

--- Later in debate ---

Universal credit: costs of claimants who rent accommodation

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford]

I beg to move amendment 118, page 26, line 20, leave out from “unless” to end of line 25 and insert

“they have consulted the Secretary of State”

This amendment would remove the requirement for the Scottish Government to obtain consent from a UK Secretary of State in relation to Universal Credit and the costs of claimants who rent accommodation.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 5, page 26, line 23, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) they have consulted the Secretary of State as to when any change made by the regulations is to start to have effect.’

Clause 24 stand part.

Amendment 119, in clause 25, page 26, line 45, leave out from “unless” to end of line 5 on page 27 and insert

“they have consulted the Secretary of State”

This amendment would remove the requirement for the Scottish Government to obtain consent from a UK Secretary of State in relation to persons to whom, and time when, Universal Credit is paid.

Amendment 7, page 27, line 1, after second “of”, insert “the delivery mechanism for”

Amendment 6, page 27, line 3, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) they have consulted the Secretary of State as to when any change made by the regulations is to start to have effect.’

Clause 25 stand part.

New clause 28—Housing benefit—

In Section F1 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, in the Exceptions, after exception 8 (see section 23 above) insert—

“Exception 9

Housing benefit.””

This New Clause provides for the full devolution of Housing Benefit, allowing Scottish Ministers to abolish the Spare Room Subsidy in Scotland, and to provide £1.8 billion of investment in housing in Scotland.

New clause 39—National Insurance—

‘(1) Section F1 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In the illustrations, omit “National Insurance;”

(3) In the exceptions, at the beginning insert—

“National Insurance.”

This new clause would devolve National Insurance to the Scottish Parliament

New clause 40—National Insurance: employers’ contributions—

‘(1) Section F1 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In the illustrations, omit “National Insurance;”

(3) In the Exceptions, after exception 11 (see section (Benefits relating to children)) insert—

“Exception 12

National Insurance so far as relating to contributions payable by employers.””

This new clause would devolve employers’ National Insurance contributions to the Scottish Parliament.

New clause 44—Working age benefits—

In Section F1 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, in the Exceptions, after exception 9 (see section 23A above) insert—

“Exception 10

Benefits entitlement to which, or the purposes of which, are the same as or similar to those of any of the following benefits—

(a) universal credit under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012,

(b) jobseeker’s allowance (whether contributions-based or income-based) under the Jobseekers Act 1995,

(c) employment and support allowance (whether contributory or income-related) under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007,

(d) income support under section 124 of the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992,

(e) housing benefit under section 130 of that Act,

(f) child tax credit and working tax credit under the Tax Credits Act 2002.

The benefits referred to in paragraphs (a) to (f) above are—

(a) in the case of income-based jobseeker’s allowance and income-related employment support allowance, those benefits as they existed on 28 April 2013 (the day before their abolition),

(b) in the case of the other benefits, those benefits as they existed on 28 May 2015 (the date of introduction into Parliament of the Bill for the Scotland Act 2015).”

This new clause would devolve working age benefits to the Scottish Parliament.

New clause 45—Universal credit: powers to vary other elements—

‘(1) A function of making regulations to which this section applies, so far as it is exercisable by the Secretary of State in or as regards Scotland, is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers concurrently with the Secretary of State.

(2) This section applies to—

(a) regulations under section 8(3)(a) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (amount in respect of earned income) so far relating to the work allowance (that is, the amount of a claimant’s earned income that is to be disregarded in calculating the amounts to be deducted from the maximum amount in accordance with section 8(3) of that Act),

(b) regulations under section 10 of that Act (amount in respect of responsibility for children and young persons),

(c) regulations under section 12 of that Act (amounts in respect of other particular needs or circumstances) so far as relating to—

(i) the needs or circumstances referred to in subsection (2)(c) of that section (caring responsibilities for a severely disabled person), or

(ii) needs or circumstances of a claimant in paid work relating to childcare costs,

(d) regulations under any of sections 14 to 22, 24 and 25 of that Act (work-related requirements), and

(e) regulations under any of sections 26 to 28 of that Act (sanctions).

(3) The Scottish Ministers may not exercise the function of making regulations to which this section applies unless they have consulted the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State may not exercise the function of making regulations to which this section applies in or as regards Scotland unless he or she has consulted the Scottish Ministers.

(5) Where regulations are made by the Scottish Ministers by virtue of subsection (1)—

(a) section 43 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (regulations: procedure) does not apply, and

(b) the regulations are subject to the negative procedure (see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).”

This new clause would give the Scottish Parliament greater flexibility to make changes in Universal Credit.

New clause 46—Benefits relating to children—

In Section F1 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, in the Exceptions, after exception 10 (see section (Working age benefits) above) insert—

“Exception 11

Benefits entitlement to which, or the purposes of which, are the same as or similar to those of any of the following benefits—

(a) guardian’s allowance under section 77 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992,

(b) child benefit under Part 9 of that Act.

The benefits referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) are those benefits as they existed on 28 May 2015 (the date of introduction into Parliament of the Bill for the Scotland Act 2015).”

This new clause would devolve benefits relating to children to the Scottish Parliament.

New clause 53—Childcare element of universal credit—

In Section F1 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, in Exceptions, after exception 6 (see section 22 above) insert—

“Exception 7

The subject-matter of regulations 31 to 34 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013.””

This will allow the Scottish Government to help parents and families in Scotland by devolving to the Scottish Parliament control over, and the power to vary, the childcare element of Universal Credit.

New clause 55—Social security—

In Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, leave out Head F (Social security).”

This new Clause would remove from the list of reserved matters in the 1998 Act (and so transfer to the Scottish Parliament) all social security schemes, including National Insurance and housing benefit, as well as child support, occupational and personal pensions and war pensions.

[Dr Whiteford]

I am pleased to move amendment 118 and to speak to our amendment 119 and new clauses 40, 44, 45 and 46, all of which relate to universal credit and further powers over social security.

Throughout the debates on the Scotland Bill, its failure to enact properly the recommendations of the Smith commission has been the key point of contention, and I am conscious that these shortcomings are nowhere more acutely evident than in this part of the Bill. The Smith agreement was crystal clear in paragraphs 43 to 48 that, although universal credit was to remain a reserved benefit, the Scottish Parliament should have specific powers and responsibilities, most notably the

“power to change the frequency of UC payments, vary the existing plans for single household payments, and pay landlords direct for housing costs in Scotland.”

It also states:

“The Scottish Parliament will have the power to vary the housing cost elements of UC, including varying the under-occupancy charge and local housing allowance rates, eligible rent, and deductions for non-dependants.”

The dispute over whether the Bill delivers on the Smith agreement was well aired on Second Reading. Amendment 118, which I intend to push to a vote, and amendment 119 would put the issue to bed. They would remove from the Bill the requirement for the Scottish Government to obtain consent from a UK Secretary of State in relation to universal credit before exercising the new powers. New clause 44 would devolve all working-age benefits to the Scottish Parliament. New clause 45 would broaden the Scottish Parliament’s administrative flexibilities over universal credit. New clause 46 would devolve child benefit and responsibility for the conditionality and sanctions regime.

It is important that the House understands how the dispute is perceived in Scotland by elected parliamentarians and wider civil society. The Scottish Parliament’s cross-party Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, which considered the Bill, did not mince its words. In paragraph 318 of its interim report, it expressed concerns about a number of the welfare provisions. It states that

“the relevant clauses do not yet meet the spirit and substance of the Smith Commission‘s recommendations and potentially pose challenges in any attempt to implement them.”

I hope Conservative Members realise that this was the view shared by their Conservative colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, who were properly represented on that committee.

The committee suggested that this issue and the form of words should be resolved between the two Governments before the Bill’s introduction, but that has not happened. The Scottish Government made proposals to the UK Government for alternative approaches to ensure effective intergovernmental working, but there has been no progress, and consequently this aspect of the Bill has not changed. It is therefore very important that we address the matter today, and that is what our amendments seek to do.

A number of key stakeholder organisations in Scotland have been outspoken in setting out their concerns about the current wording of the Bill and have helped to highlight exactly why we need those powers in Scotland and what we could do with them. The Wise Group, for example, has argued:

“The power to split Universal Credit payments within households, to increase the frequency of payments and to make housing element payments direct to landlords will allow the flexibility in benefit payments to fit with the needs of some of the most vulnerable groups in society.”

The Poverty Alliance has expressed disappointment over what it says is

“ultimately a veto given to the Secretary of State over any future changes to the devolved elements of Universal Credit by the Scottish Government.”

Inclusion Scotland has pointed out that the Bill, as it stands, could result in delays to the implementation of mitigation policies agreed by the Scottish Parliament. It also says that that

“may not be consistent with the spirit of the Smith Commission which implies that the devolved welfare powers can be exercised without the need to obtain prior permission from the DWP.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I am paying close attention to the hon. Lady’s remarks. If, as the previous Government did, we start to rein back tax credits, which were effectively a sop to employers allowing them to pay lower wages and thereby depressed the wage market, employers would be forced in the court of public opinion to pay more. In that way, could we not solve the problem, but on the employers’ side of the argument rather than the taxpayers’?

[Dr Whiteford]

If the hon. Gentleman is proposing that we start paying people a living wage and ensuring that people can actually live on the minimum wage, I could not agree with him more. Fundamentally, until we have living wages, those in low and middle-income families will always live below the breadline and struggle to make ends meet.

Those 12 organisations posed a fundamental challenge. As we begin defining the shape of Scotland’s social security system, we need to understand how high the stakes are for people who have been struggling for years and seeing their incomes reduce in real terms.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am impressed by the hon. Lady’s speech and am obviously listening to it intently, but is it true that the SNP five times voted against making the living wage a requirement in public procurement legislation?

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Lady is mistaken. The procurement legislation was hampered by EU legislation. In recent public sector contracts, however, the Scottish Government have started to integrate living wage requirements from the outset. In fact, all the people for whom the Scottish Government are now responsible are on a living wage. There remain many challenges with contracted-out services, particularly at local authority level, but we are trying hard to move towards a living wage in all parts of the public sector. In recent months, we have also made real progress in making sure that private sector employers move towards a living wage. After all, most low-paid jobs are found in the private sector. We need the power to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. When people on low incomes have money in their pockets, they spend it, thereby boosting and strengthening the economy and creating jobs. We saw that when the minimum wage was introduced.

It is incumbent on everyone in the House to listen to the voices of people in Scotland who have put their heads above the parapet on this issue, because they are some of Scotland’s largest and most influential civil society organisations: Citizens Advice Scotland, Barnardo’s Scotland, the Child Poverty Action Group Scotland, the Church of Scotland, Inclusion Scotland, One Parent Families Scotland, Oxfam Scotland, the Poverty Alliance, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Shelter Scotland, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Trussell Trust and last, but by no means least, the Scottish Trades Union Congress. The veto in the Scotland Bill is a barrier to responsive and responsible governance in Scotland.

[John Redwood]

If the Scottish Government did have wider-ranging powers on welfare, as the hon. Lady would like, by how much would they need to put up benefits compared with UK levels to tackle the problems she has identified?

[Dr Whiteford]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. It is worth pointing out that, over the past five years, Scotland has spent a lower proportion of its GDP on pensions and benefits than the UK as a whole. The question of what a social security system can afford is dependent on the success of the economy. That is why our amendments are all designed to bring into the ambit of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament those powers that would enable us to grow our economy, run it more effectively and join up the existing devolved powers with the new powers that we propose. Frankly, getting powers over work and powers over benefits covered by universal credit is extremely important. The other really important point is that we protect the most disadvantaged people in our society from the onslaught of Tory cuts. Again and again, the people of Scotland have made it clear that they want an alternative to this austerity regime—and that is what we want to be in a position to deliver.

The Deputy First Minister, John Swinney has pointed out that it is not difficult to foresee that what might appear to be pretty innocuous requirements to consult the Secretary of State and secure his or her agreement could be translated into what is essentially a blocking power. All sorts of excuses could be used to prevent something from happening. As the Deputy First Minister put it, if the Secretary of State has a “reasonable explanation” for why he is acting in such a way, that passes the test as it currently exists in clause 24. In practice, the Bill gives the UK Government the ability to veto decisions made by the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament. This is not a hypothetical scenario. The Deputy First Minister has pointed out how he spent two years trying to make progress on the block grant adjustment, and was stalled and delayed with more analysis at every turn by the UK Government.

For me, no issue illustrates the shortcomings of the Scotland Bill better than the restrictions it would place on the power of the Scottish Parliament to abolish the bedroom tax. As the Secretary of State knows only too well, this has been an issue close to my heart over the last few years, because of its punitive impact on disabled people in Scotland, its gross unfairness and the enormous pressure it puts on councils and other social housing providers. In Scotland, 80% of people affected by the bedroom tax are in homes with a disabled adult, and there is a chronic mismatch between the house size requirements of tenants and the available housing stock. Back in April 2013, I led one of the SNP’s very few Opposition day debates here in this Chamber during the previous Parliament on that very topic, and the Secretary of State knows that I questioned him on several occasions about the failure of the policy and its deep unpopularity right across the country.

The Scottish Government have mitigated the impact of the bedroom tax by providing discretionary housing payments to everyone affected, but it is important to recognise that we still cannot abolish that legislation, which remains on the statute book. Moreover, the money to mitigate its worst side-effects has had to be found from other devolved policy budgets—and, crucially, the legal liability remains with tenants. It is far from an ideal solution. In order to mitigate the bedroom tax by lifting the cap on discretionary housing payments, the Scottish Government first had to secure the permission of the UK Government, and the protracted and frustrating process they encountered in attempting to secure that permission illustrates, I think perfectly, why we need to lift this veto. It shows how a need for permission can be drawn out for months at a time.

[David Mundell]

I am familiar with the hon. Lady’s point on this issue, but even the First Minister acknowledges that the point from which a request was made to increase the cap, to the legislation reaching the Privy Council, was achieved at a record rate—and it was achieved by the two Governments working very closely together, which can be done on so many occasions.

[Dr Whiteford]

The Secretary of State and I have a different perception of time frames and what they mean to people living on limited incomes. When the Scottish Government sought permission to raise the cap on DHPs, the UK Government used exactly the kind of blocking and delaying tactics that will be left open under the Scotland Bill. These are not theoretical, worst-case scenarios. I would like to refresh the Secretary of State’s memory, as it was early in 2014 when the Scottish Government first sought the UK Government’s permission to lift the cap on DHPs, and I raised the issue on more than one occasion in this Chamber subsequently. In fact, it took until May last year for the Government to grant permission—for something that could have been done overnight. Most of the public organisations I deal with in my capacity as an MP have a 21-day turnaround, yet the Government take months at a time. That is an awful long time for someone living on their uppers and struggling with their income.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Is it not amazing to hear the nanny-esque statements coming from the Conservative Front-Bench team about the Government giving the Parliament permission? That is the sort of thing that they would not tolerate themselves if the European Commission, the French or the German Government were involved, but they expect the Scottish Government to come cap in hand to Westminster when all they want is to do the decent thing for people. It is ridiculous.

[Dr Whiteford]

My hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point.

During the intervening months between the simple request and getting the permission we needed, some of our most disadvantaged citizens continued to accrue rent arrears or had to do without essentials in order to meet their liabilities. That is just one concrete example of how restrictions of this type currently act as a stalling mechanism and a barrier to progressive change, and they demonstrate why we need to get rid of the veto.

Other examples of things we could do with these provisions include the power to maintain direct payments of housing benefit to social landlords—something that I think is in everybody’s interests—and the power to ensure that under universal credit claimants can receive individual payments, which potentially benefits women and children and protects their interests. Then there is the power to equalise the earnings disregard between the first and second earners in a household. Again, given the persistent pay gap in Scotland between women and men, that measure could predominantly benefit up to 70,000 women by up to £1,200 a year. By contrast, if we leave the Bill unamended, we curtail the powers of the Scottish Parliament to enact policies that are overwhelmingly in the interests of our citizens and are supported by them. We risk seeing such measures batted off into the long grass.

We also store up trouble down the line. It is fair to say that the Secretary of State got himself in a richt kirn earlier this month on the “Scotland 2015” programme when he was asked directly about the veto. When the presenter put it to him that

“it could be used to block if there was a political will to do that because who would decide if the Secretary of State was unreasonably withholding consent?”,

the Secretary of State said:

“Well, I would hope that it would never come to that, but because it’s on the face of the legislation ultimately it might be the courts that would decide.”

I fear that the Secretary of State has let the cat out of the bag; I suspect he was a lot more candid than he intended to be. I think we can infer from that very revealing remark that he knows that, in practice, this Bill’s measures will act as a veto on the Scottish Parliament—pure and simple. I put it to the Committee that if the Scottish Parliament has to go to court to enforce the powers devolved in the Bill, it is not worth the paper it is written on.

[Wayne David]

Does the hon. Lady accept that there is a potential constitutional point, too, in that what is being suggested is, in effect, a breach of the Sewel convention, whereby power is given with one hand, but is possibly taken away with the other?

[Dr Whiteford]

That is an astute point. It shows that if we get ourselves into a muddle with the legislation and it is just a kirn, we are storing up trouble down the line. The legislation has to be future-proof as well as present-proof. We must prepare for every eventuality.

We can dance around the semantics of the current wording of the Bill all afternoon, but if Scottish Ministers have to obtain the agreement from UK Ministers on when their measures are to take effect, that is, in effect, handing the UK the ability to block or delay the implementation of policy, frustrating the legitimate democratic process and contravening both the letter and the spirit of the Smith agreement. If the Government have to go to court to enforce these measures, it should be obvious that they are less than adequate. If the Secretary of State still maintains there is no veto, I challenge him to accept amendments 118 and 119, which make that explicit and beyond all doubt.

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Dr Whiteford]

I am not giving way, as I am about to wind up my remarks.

This group of amendments comes down to respect—respect for the promises made to the people of Scotland; respect for our Parliament; respect for the democratic process; and, above all, respect for our citizens and our ability to make decisions in our own interests. That is, after all, what meaningful devolution is really all about.

[John Redwood]

I think that the Committee wants to implement the spirit and the letter of Smith, and I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State’s response to the detailed arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). I think, however, that when we are dealing with a matter as potentially wide-ranging as universal credit, we also need to think about the money, and about how far it is possible to operate a very different welfare system in different parts of a country such as the United Kingdom. What we have seen in the unfolding and dreadful Greek crisis is that, if a country belongs to a currency union but has not brought its benefits system into line, and if there is no proper system of sharing revenues and expenditures throughout the eurozone, that becomes extremely damaging, as it has for the poor Greeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

This is a matter for the hon. Gentleman’s and my colleagues to raise in the Scottish Parliament. They need to hold the Scottish Government to account for their housing policies.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would also carry a significant cost, and although it appears to be a simple proposition, that is in fact far from being the case. On that basis, I am unable to recommend acceptance of the proposal. As I have said, however, I am reflecting on all the amendments that have been tabled. My intention is to move as quickly as possible to achieve the devolution of these significant welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that we can move on and have a proper, mature debate in Scotland about how the powers should be used and who is going to pay the cost of any additional benefits that might be proposed by a future Scottish Government.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford]

We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate on the amendments this afternoon, perhaps more wide-ranging than I could ever have envisaged. I am not sure how we managed to get sidetracked into Greece so early in the afternoon’s debate, and the comparison between Greece and Scotland did seem rather ill-conceived. It was, of course, refuted ably and comprehensively by the hon. Friend of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh).

However different Scotland and Greece might be in cultural, economic and climatic terms—

[John Redwood]

rose—

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not give way just at the moment, because I think we have talked quite enough about Greece. I want to make a couple of substantive points about the issues that were raised, however.

Whatever differences Scotland and Greece have, what we have in common, apart from our patron saint, is the fact that people in Scotland will feel great sympathy for their fellow European citizens in Greece and will have a sense of solidarity about the level of deprivation they are having to undergo. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, made the important point that the real morality tale from the Greek situation that is relevant to our discussions today is that austerity does not work and that we need the power to create alternatives to it.

The other salutary tale we heard this afternoon came from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) who, with his usual eloquence, drew on his experiences in Northern Ireland to warn of the difficulties ahead if we fail to legislate clearly. He also warned of the dangers of what has been termed “karaoke legislation” in Northern Ireland, in which people have powers but not the power to enforce those powers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) made a powerful speech that highlighted some of the real differences between the challenges we face with welfare and pensions in Scotland and those in other parts of the UK, pointing out the low life expectancy and the poor value that Scottish pensioners get. Indeed, we have some of the lowest pensions in Europe and Scottish pensioners end up about £10,000 each worse off because of our pension arrangements. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) drew attention to the issues with the work allowance, which is a really good example of what we might do with these powers to improve the support we give to lower paid workers.

Above all, we need to talk about the veto. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who is quickly becoming one of the stars of this Parliament, set out how new clauses 45 and 46 would enable constructive working between the UK and Scottish Governments. That means not just fine words about constructive working but fine working.

To move on to those who spoke from the Front Benches, I welcome the support from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for our lead amendment and for amendment 119. I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State’s conclusion to the debate. I fully accept that there are constructive relationships through the joint ministerial working group and many other parts of the Scottish and UK Governments, but when there are genuine differences of opinion and of ideological direction as well as different policies and different circumstances, we need the mechanisms and the legislation that enable us to deal with them effectively. That is what we still do not see on the face of the Bill.

The problem is that the Bill, in its current form, does not cut the mustard. The Secretary of State’s position on this could probably be summed up by the old saying, “They’re aw oot o’ step but oor Jock.” There is a consensus in Scotland, among all the other Scottish MPs, among MSPs, including MSPs from the Secretary of State’s own party, and among civil society that the veto needs to be taken out of the Bill. I urge the Secretary of State to listen. Part of the problem in Scotland for too long has been that people have not listened, but the voices of the people of Scotland will not be silenced. If the Secretary of State thinks that these issues will go away, I can tell him that they will not. We have heard salutary lessons about why we need to have the legislation pinned down and secure.

Earlier in the debate, I should also have stated my intention to move new clauses 39 and 40 and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South for flagging up that omission. We will press—

[Ian Murray]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I am just summing up. We will press new clause 39 to a vote later, and in the meantime we also want to vote on amendment 118.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Opportunities for All programme, which was mentioned earlier, is a good example of a policy area in which the Scottish Government are working closely with local authorities to deliver services and opportunities for young people? Similarly, the Scottish welfare fund is another good example of a scheme administered and delivered by local authorities. When the hon. Gentleman talks about a centralist Government, he needs to remember that 90% of ring-fenced funding has been devolved to local authorities by the Scottish Government. He might want to take a look at Wales, where the Labour Government seem to want to abolish local authorities all together.

[Ian Murray]

I did not want to turn this into a political argument: I merely wanted to point out that work programmes are best delivered by local authorities. If the Welsh Government have made the decision that they are best delivered in a different way, it is up to them. The hon. Lady highlights, however, that devolution across the UK provides an array of ways to deliver services, and I hope that the Scottish Government take note of this debate and consider whether we should have double devolution. The principle of subsidiarity across the European Union and the UK, which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) promoted in his new clause, should sit happily and firmly with the Scottish Government and their relationship with local government.

Local government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have said clearly that local authorities across Scotland feel that they have been strangled, and we need to address that important point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Claims are now cleared at four times the rate they were in January 2014. We have quadrupled the number of healthcare professionals, introduced more than 200 new assessment rooms, doubled the number of DWP decision-making staff, and improved IT systems and claimant communication. I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituent has benefited from those improvements.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I welcome the new Ministers to their roles.

The recent High Court ruling found that the delays to PIP were unreasonable and unlawful. They are also undermining the well-being and dignity of sick and disabled people. I know that I am not the only Member who has seen constituents affected not just by inordinate delays, but by poor quality assessments, driving them into hardship and destitution. The High Court ruling should have been a wake-up call for Ministers, but they seem to be refusing to accept that PIP is just not fit for purpose. In the light of that damning judgment, will they halt the roll-out of PIP and initiate a review as a matter of urgency?

[Justin Tomlinson]

Actually, the Court and the Paul Gray review agreed that there were no inherent failings in the system, and significant improvements have been made, which I have already listed. The reality is that some cases were unacceptable, but we must not forget why we introduced PIP. It is a modern benefit that allows thorough face-to-face assessments and will ultimately see a higher proportion of maximum value paid, compared with the old disability living allowance system. We are continuing to make improvements and I will keep a close eye on the issue.

[Dr Whiteford]

I am disappointed by the Minister’s complacency. Earlier this year, Citizens Advice Scotland published research showing that 55% of current DLA claimants will lose out in the transfer to PIP. It is not just sick and disabled people who will suffer—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I thought you were cutting me off, Mr Speaker. The Scottish Government estimate that 450 carers in Scotland will lose their carer’s allowance because of this transition. That will put further strain on families that are already at a disadvantage—

[Mr Speaker]

Too long. Some of these questions require a bit of advance practice and a blue pencil. I have no impediment in my throat: I was trying gently to hint to the hon. Lady that her question was a tad long.

Amendment of the Law

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Darling]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman nods. They are pretty doubtful for one of two reasons: one is that a lot can change in that time, and the other is that the person presenting them has every intention of changing them as and when we get to that time. I do not believe for one moment that the Chancellor has changed his philosophy or beliefs from when he told the House last year that he wanted to reduce public spending to the lowest share in modern times—certainly since the welfare state and the national health service were introduced. All that has changed is that that was a political embarrassment last year, so he has simply shoved up the numbers at the end of the spending profile to be able to say, “Look, I’m not going to cause you any difficulties; public spending is going to rise, not decrease.” That is nonsense; the Tory view of public spending has not changed one jot.

Where I part company with many Government Members is that I do not think public spending is almost de facto a bad thing. It is extremely helpful to an economy in education and research and development, never mind the things an advanced economy demands in relation to the welfare state and pensions. So when we look at that profile, it is not credible, and I think it also conceals what the Conservatives would really like to do.

I want to say one thing about oil. I welcome what has been proposed. It is very sensible, because the oil taxation regime had to change, but I just remark in passing—and I am sorry only one nationalist has turned up to the debate—that the OBR forecasts are 47% below what it proposed just a year ago. North sea oil revenues are a 10th of what the nationalists told us they would have if they had an independent Scotland. This is another example of where pooling and sharing resources across the United Kingdom makes a massive difference. If Scotland had been independent today, it would have been faced with cuts that would make the austerity that is now being visited on the economy look like a Sunday afternoon tea party. They would have been substantial and damaging to the people of Scotland. That is why the nationalists have nothing to say about this; they have no one to blame for this problem but themselves.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Darling]

I have never actually met the hon. Lady, but I will certainly give way to her.

[Dr Whiteford]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Would he accept that, over the past 30 years, oil revenues have contributed billions of pounds that have consistently bailed out Westminster’s bad economic management? Would he also accept that oil prices go up as well as down, and that the long-term trajectory of oil revenues is an upward one?

[Mr Darling]

I agree that oil prices go up and down, but when I said that last year during the referendum campaign, I was told that I was scaremongering, that I was talking Scotland down and that that could not possibly happen. The hon. Lady should listen to her former leader. He told us that the oil price would never drop below $113 a barrel, but look what happened a few months later.

In relation to the oil price, I would like to say in passing that whoever is Chancellor in the future will increasingly face a structural problem in the economy. North sea oil revenues are not going to return to where they have been for the past 30 years, income tax revenues are decreasing, corporation tax is proving more and more difficult to get, and the Government’s ability to collect money through fuel duties is steadily diminishing. This is all going to put more pressure on measures such as VAT. All Governments are going to have to face these facts, and the fall in oil prices brings them into sharp focus.

The current low levels of productivity are a matter of great concern. The Chancellor had a lot of fun comparing Yorkshire and France, but French workers are in fact more productive. That is not because our workers are lazy, or anything like that; it is simply because French firms have invested more. That is why certainty in public spending is important. It is also important that the Government should do those things that the private sector is not going to do. For example, I have increasing doubts about the ability of the private sector to provide us single handed with the energy generation that we are going to need. I am in favour of replacing our nuclear power plants, but the proposals for the next nuclear power station are heavily dependent on the French and Chinese Governments, and I worry about that. I speak as an advocate of the mixed economy, but I believe that we now need to ask ourselves whether we have reached a stage at which it might be cheaper and more effective for the Government to be doing more in that regard, rather than leaving it to the private sector.

On transport infrastructure, it will, I hope, be for the next Government finally to make a decision on additional expansion, whether at Heathrow or elsewhere in the south-east. Actually, none of those arguments has changed in the 10 years since the last White Paper was published on the subject. I also hope that the next Government will take advantage of the present ability to borrow very cheaply by borrowing to invest. I personally would spend more time on HS3 than on HS2, but I recognise that I might be in a minority in holding that view, on my own side and in the House as a whole. To be honest, there would be much more benefit, particularly to the northern part of England, in spending more money on the transport links there than in building a fast link between Birmingham and London. However, that is something that the next Government are going to have to deal with. I speak as a former Secretary of State for Transport. The Department for Transport’s record on announcing such plans is pretty good, but it is not quite so good when it comes to delivering. Indeed, many announcements were made last week, but I distinctly remember announcing the same things myself 10 years ago. Perhaps that illustrates the problem that all Governments face.

One of the profound issues that needs to be discussed as we go into the next election is what people expect the Government to do in regard to the provision of services such as education, health and pensions and what sort of society we want to live in. However, this Budget does not begin to address those questions, which is why I shall have no hesitation in supporting my hon. and right hon. Friends in the Division Lobby tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The thematic focus on jobs in this debate helps us to get to the heart of why last week’s Budget was a huge missed opportunity. The Government had a chance to move away from a cuts agenda that has stifled recovery, but they failed to take it. Instead, Scotland alone is looking at a further £12 billion of cuts over the next four years, which will hamper our economic recovery, damage our public services and harm our poorest communities and families.

Everyone welcomes the fact that finally the economy is recovering and unemployment is falling, but it has been a painfully slow process. It is the slowest recovery from recession in history. The OBR does not expect real wages to return to 2008 levels until the second quarter of 2016. On the most recent figures, the UK’s GDP per capita is still 1.8% below pre-recession levels and the current account deficit—a measure of our trade and income flows with the rest of the world—is worse than at any point in the UK’s history.

In 2010, the Chancellor said that the UK would run a surplus of £5 billion in the current structural budget this financial year. Instead, he now expects a structural current deficit of over £45 billion. In the six years to March 2016, the Chancellor’s borrowing target from 2010 is set to be missed by £150 billion. The austerity programme simply has not worked in the way he led us to expect.

If austerity has failed in economic terms, it has been a disaster for people, especially people on the lower half of the income spectrum. When we look at the cumulative winners and losers from the changes to the tax and benefits system over the past five years, we see that those who are trying to raise children have taken some of the heaviest hits to their incomes and living standards. The distributional analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies demonstrates that in every income group households with children have lost relative to those without children.

Given the rapid growth of child poverty levels, we should be particularly concerned about those in the lowest-income households. The Child Poverty Action Group points out that almost two thirds of the children who are growing up in poverty in the UK today have at least one parent in work. I have said before in the House that in-work poverty is one of the greatest challenges we face. The Budget offers little that will help those families. Indeed, measures such as the increase in the personal allowance tend to benefit higher-paid workers and higher-rate taxpayers far more than those in low-paid work. That is symptomatic of the wrong priorities that we have seen from this Government. On the Government’s own figures, the poorest 20% of households will be worse off by an equivalent of £466 a year. I am fortunate to represent a constituency in Aberdeenshire where unemployment is extremely low, yet in parts of Banff and Buchan, one in four children is growing up in poverty.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in VAT, which was proposed by the Liberals and the Tories, certainly did not help poor people, and that it is unforgiveable that Labour abstained on that vote?

[Dr Whiteford]

I agree with my hon. Friend that regressive taxation has played an important part in driving up child poverty. The pernicious combination of low pay and cuts to tax credits and child benefit has been the main driver of child poverty in our communities and of the increased pressure on parents to comply with the sometimes quite unreasonable and disproportionate conditionality in the system.

Child poverty has long-term consequences for the health, education and life chances of those who experience it. That is why it is short-sighted of the Government to short-change families and inflict yet more financial pain on those who are already carrying the can for the financial collapse.

I do not want to leave the topic of jobs without acknowledging the significance of the Budget announcements on the North sea fiscal regime. Many of the better-paid jobs in my constituency are in the energy sector. However, it is not just those who work directly in the oil and gas sector and its supply chain who depend on the industry, but myriad large and small local businesses, including retailers, hoteliers and service providers. The Government’s U-turn on the fiscal regime in the North sea, at long last, is very welcome, but it could have been done months ago when problems started appearing on the horizon—some of them predating the fall in oil prices. It has taken the Chancellor four years to reverse the tax increases he has imposed on the sector since 2011.

Will the Chief Secretary, who is back in his place, now accept that his supplementary charge was a mistake that has had a detrimental impact on our offshore energy sector and on the people who work in the industry, onshore and offshore? Will the Government provide assurances that their poor stewardship of our oil and gas resources will give way to a period of fiscal stability for the sector? Over the past five years, the one consistent chorus that I have heard from every part of the industry has been, “Stop shifting the goalposts on tax.” While we are still seeing announcements of job losses in the north-east, it is more important than ever that the industry can plan ahead with confidence.

There has been a cosy consensus around austerity that implies that it is inevitable, necessary and unavoidable, but there is nothing inevitable about it. The Chancellor had headroom in the Budget to make small increases in public spending, while still bringing down the deficit and debt. Such small increases would help to protect our public services and our social fabric, which has never looked so worn and fragile. Professor Simon Wren-Lewis of Oxford university argues that the Government’s austerity programme may have cost the UK economic growth equivalent to 5% of GDP. No doubt economists will argue the toss on the detail, but the huge loss of potential tax revenues that that represents helps to explain why the OBR’s 2010 forecasts on public borrowing have been £150 billion out over the past six years.

An alternative approach to deficit reduction could benefit the economy and expand the tax base, bringing real and sustainable economic growth. The benefits of that are simply not reflected in the Treasury’s modelling. The SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon, has set out an alternative to the austerity agenda to support jobs and public services. I hope that in a few weeks’ time, an enhanced group of MPs will sit on these Benches and make that case. We will be a strong voice not just for the people of Scotland, but for everyone in the UK who wants a progressive alternative to this failed austerity project and this failed coalition Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am reminded of the feeling when one thinks the washing machine will stop—but it does not!

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Over 143,000 benefit sanctions were imposed in Scotland in the two years from October 2012, and one in four food bank users is using them because of delays in the benefit system. Yet today we read in the Financial Times that the Tories are planning to cut 30,000 jobs from the Department for Work and Pensions if they win the next election, most of them in the nations and regions. Is this not a recipe for further chaos and misery? Do not both claimants and DWP staff deserve better?

[Esther McVey]

For the sake of brevity and clarity, those figures are not true at all.

Compulsory Jobs Guarantee

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I do not think we should pretend today that tackling long-term unemployment is anything other than immensely challenging. Fluctuations in levels of employment and unemployment are largely driven by the state of the economy, but somewhere in today’s debate we have lost sight of the fact that, even allowing for economic cycles, most people claim jobseeker’s allowance for a very short time. Most people come off JSA in a matter of weeks or months. Only a small minority of claimants will experience long-term unemployment, and most of them are concentrated in geographic areas where work is hard to find. Inevitably, in a competitive labour market those with least experience and low skill levels find it hardest to find work, and many of those who struggle to sustain employment, and those most at risk of long-term unemployment, face additional hurdles.

In the short time I have today I want to talk about young jobseekers. Youth unemployment is unacceptably high and much more could be done to address it. Young people’s job prospects have been very adversely affected by the financial collapse and recession, but it is really important to emphasise that as the economy recovers youth unemployment has been falling—certainly in Scotland—and is now at its lowest level for five years. I welcome that, but there are still enormous challenges ahead.

The question today is whether the proposed compulsory jobs guarantee would tackle long-term unemployment effectively. I am not convinced by what I have heard from either Front Bench. I do not think the policy addresses the underlying causes of long-term unemployment. It is a blunt instrument that will not help those facing the biggest disadvantages, and it offers too little, too late. It is desperately important that we do not wait until somebody has been unemployed for a whole year before we intervene, because all the evidence suggests that earlier interventions with young people are much more effective. I also regret the lack of ambition from the Government to make the kind of early interventions that might tackle disadvantage.

In response to soaring youth unemployment in the wake of the financial crash, the Scottish Government introduced the Opportunities for All scheme, which offers every 16 to 19-year-old in Scotland a place in work, education or training. Take-up has been overwhelming: record levels of school leavers—more than 92%—now have a positive destination on leaving school, and more importantly, those positive destinations are being sustained for 90% of school leavers. The number of young people not in education, training or employment is now at its lowest level since before the financial crash and has decreased across every local authority area.

There is no room for complacency, however, and we need to talk about the minority still being left behind. In certain parts of the country, job opportunities are still very limited. The final report of the commission for developing Scotland’s young work force, chaired by Sir Ian Wood, was published in June last year. It set out recommendations to reduce youth unemployment by 40% by 2020 and proposed an ambitious transformation of the way in which employers, schools and colleges, and local authorities work with young people to fulfil their potential. However, it also highlighted the extent to which inequalities were compounding disadvantage in the labour market. For example, although disabled young people often have positive destinations when they leave school, a few years on they are four times more likely to be unemployed than their non-disabled peers.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The motion states that those who do not take up the compulsory jobs guarantee would face losing their benefits. Is there not a danger that such a draconian measure would lead to many people being lost in the system with little hope for the future?

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Obviously, young people who lack skills and qualifications are more likely to struggle in the labour market, but our black and minority ethnic young people are also experiencing disproportionately high rates of unemployment. Our looked-after young people have the poorest job prospects of all. Just one in three care leavers is likely to be employed nine months after leaving school.

The point is that many of the young people furthest from the labour market, and certainly those at greatest risk of long-term unemployment, face complex barriers. It is not just a case of, “Here’s a job, get on with it.” The compulsory jobs guarantee does not address these complexities at all. Indeed, it would make unemployed young people wait a year before they get an offer of a work opportunity, and that offer would be made with the threat of benefit sanctions held over their heads like the sword of Damocles. I do not think anyone objects to sanctions that are proportionate and fair—everyone who is fit for work should be willing to take a job if it is offered—but that is not going to overcome the challenges facing many of the people at the greatest risk of long-term unemployment.

We have seen the impact of poorly applied sanctions in the food banks in all our communities. The young people I have met in my constituency—kids with learning disabilities, literacy problems, impaired speech or movement or chronic health issues, or kids who have just had wretched early lives—all want to work, but it is not always straightforward to help them to find work, to make themselves attractive to employers or even to understand that they have something valuable to offer. In that regard, I pay tribute to the teachers in our schools and to voluntary organisations such as the Prince’s Trust and Theatre Modo, which are working in my constituency to help vulnerable young people.

We were talking earlier about the failure of the Work programme in Scotland and the need for that responsibility to be devolved as soon as possible. The same applies to other aspects of employment support, as was recommended by the Smith commission.

[Pete Wishart]

Is it the case that the more powers the Scottish Parliament has, the more we can do for the people of Scotland?

[Dr Whiteford]

That is right. The commission has shown that the opportunity for joined-up working between public, private and voluntary sector employers—our schools, colleges and local authorities working in partnership with the Government and being empowered by Government initiatives—is there already and has been shown to work in providing opportunities for all. We need the powers to tackle youth unemployment, and we need them now. The sooner they are devolved, the better.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—