Oral Answers to Questions
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
1. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence about Ministry of Defence police numbers in Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
We have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on defence matters relating to Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), last spoke about the issue to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) —who is responsible for defence personnel, welfare and veterans—earlier this week.
Dr Whiteford
As recently as November last year, the Prime Minister said that
“there are no current plans to reduce the number of Ministry of Defence police at the Faslane or Coulport naval bases.”—[Official Report, 23 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 295.]
Since then, however, the Government have confirmed plans to cut the MOD police budget by 50%. I am curious to know whether the Prime Minister’s assurances hold water. May I ask the Secretary of State what proportion of that cut will fall in Scotland, and whether he believes that the threats to our national security have diminished sufficiently in recent months to justify a 50% cut?
Michael Moore
What the Prime Minister said stands. There are no current plans for the MOD to reduce the core police role relating to the security of our national institutions, such as nuclear safety at Coulport or Faslane. National security, including the security of our defence installations, is our highest priority. The reason we have so many MOD police in Scotland in the first place is our huge defence imprint, which would be put at risk immediately if the country were to become independent.
Scotland’s Constitutional Future
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Moore
I absolutely agree that it is vital that people can have confidence in the referendum process, that it has a legal basis, that it is fair and that it will get a clear, decisive outcome. The role of a body such as the Electoral Commission will be vital because only through its neutrality, independence and experience can we get the necessary confidence so that the process and rules are not an issue. I hope that as we discuss and debate this issue across Scotland people will agree that the commission is the right body to oversee the referendum.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has already responded to a question this afternoon about the eligibility of 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum. I have only had a chance to have a fairly cursory look at the draft order attached to his consultation paper, but perhaps he can clarify whether it will be the case that European citizens living in Scotland will be eligible to vote in a referendum but 16 and 17-year-olds will not. I understand the pressures of government, but will he support his own party’s policy—it has been a long-standing proponent of 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote—and support the rights of 16 and 17-year-olds to vote?
Michael Moore
What we are proposing is the same franchise as was good enough for the First Minister and every MSP in the Scottish Parliament. I find it slightly strange that people would argue that was not somehow a legitimate franchise on which to be elected. As to my own party’s position, I was clear about that earlier on, but I also made the point—I hope the hon. Lady would accept this—that we can argue about the role of 16 and 17-year-olds in the democratic process legitimately for all elections and all referendums and electoral events; to pick it out on one moment and to apply it in these particular circumstances would, I think, be wrong. But let us have the debate; let us see what people across Scotland believe.
Public Sector Pensions
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
There is no suggestion that those on the lowest pay will receive lower state pensions. The Labour party has been very keen to engage in such scaremongering, but the Government’s proposals specifically protect those on the lowest earnings of below £15,000.
Before I finish, I want to turn to some of the specifics about Scotland.
Dr Whiteford
I hope that when the Minister comes to explain the protection for low-paid workers he will be able to clarify something about which many people in trade unions have been asking. Will part-time workers’ earnings and the increase in their contributions be calculated on the basis of full-time equivalent wages?
David Mundell
They will be based on full-time equivalent wages. That point is clear. The difference on pensions between this Government and the Scottish Government is that we are clear on the points that people might not want to hear rather than pretending to people that they can have everything when that is not sustainable.
Dr Whiteford
The contributions of a woman who works part-time in a professional job—for example, as a nurse or a teacher—but takes home less than £15,000 a year will be increased not at the lower rate but at the higher rate of a full-time equivalent.
Mr Bain
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later, because I want to make more progress with my argument.
The average public sector pension in local government is £3,000 a year, and half of female public sector pensioners receive less than £4,000 a year, or £80 a week. As Lord Hutton’s report makes clear, the notion that current public sector pensions are gold-plated is entirely wrong. The Government’s plans mean that a part-time 45-year-old school dinner lady with five years’ service, who is in the local government pension scheme and on a salary of £8,000 per year, would receive £400 a year less in her pension by the age of 65, or £672 a year less if she took it at 68, while she would pay £5,500 more in contributions by her retirement.
In April, the Government altered the indexation of public sector pensions from the retail prices index measure of inflation to the consumer prices index measure. The TUC estimates that the change has reduced the average value of public sector pensions by 15%, and the OBR has assessed the reduction to be 8.7% by 2017.
Dr Whiteford
If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the switch from RPI to CPI, why did he not vote against it on 17 February?
Mr Bain
Sadly, this Government will have had another three Budgets and, perhaps, another three autumn statements by the next general election, so we will make our spending plans clear at that general election—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] We will, and those plans will not involve the massive cuts in capital spending that have put construction workers on the dole in Scotland—which the Scottish National party has made over the past two years.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party for securing this debate and for ensuring that the damaging pension plans continue to be at the top of the political agenda.
As the Minister said, the SNP had choices. In relation to the final part of the motion, the SNP gave away its choices in refusing the opportunity that it had in the Scottish Parliament to vary taxes by 3p. If it had accepted the need to continue with that, it could have used it towards the contributions that are required. There has been a lot of talk and nonsense about that from Members who have now left the Chamber. They know full well that that is the case.
Dr Whiteford
It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman is proposing that we increase taxes in Scotland to pay for pension increases. Is that really what he means?
Mr Donohoe
We live, at this stage, in the United Kingdom. If the SNP is suggesting that Scotland has a different set of circumstances for pensions than England or Wales, there is something wrong with the system. We live in the United Kingdom and SNP Members have to accept that. I have more in common with a joiner in Newcastle than with the director of the Royal Bank of Scotland. That is the way that SNP Members should think as well. They had choices and they denied themselves the opportunity to make them.
This matter affects many of my constituents. My constituency has 4% more public sector workers than the United Kingdom average. Some 39,300 of my constituents work in the public sector, about two thirds of whom are women. The pension proposals will affect women more than men, because they are the lower-paid in society.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to take less than five minutes, which is predicated on my taking no interventions.
I welcome this afternoon’s debate, although I am somewhat surprised that the Scottish National party, whose Members have not given a speech yet, has chosen the topic of public pensions, given the very thin ice on which they find themselves with this issue. While 300,000 public sector workers and over 70% of the people of Scotland backed last week’s day of action, the SNP sided with the Tories and Lib Dems, and refused fully to support pensions justice. Not for the first time, the SNP’s warm words do not match up to its actions. Many are now asking: what is the difference between the SNP Administration in Holyrood and the coalition Government here? The SNP implements Tory cuts in public sector pensions, pay, jobs and public projects. Indeed, last week’s revelations about the submission to the Hutton inquiry from the Scottish Government’s Scottish Public Pensions Agency showed that the SNP is prepared to suggest even deeper cuts to pensions than those proposed by the Tory-led coalition. Perhaps the SNP Members here today can explain why their party in Scotland is doing the Tories’ dirty work for them.
Like, I am sure, those of numerous other Members, many of my constituents have contacted me to condemn the Government’s actions on public sector pensions. They have already had forced on them a change in the pension calculation from RPI to CPI, which Hutton says represents a 15% cut in pensions benefits.
Dr Whiteford
Why did the hon. Gentleman not vote against the move from RPI to CPI when he had the chance?
Graeme Morrice
What I am not supporting is this coalition Government’s position on public sector pensions, and I am certainly not supporting the SNP and Scottish Government input into the issue. When they had the opportunity, they went to the Scottish Public Pensions Agency and argued for a position that was even more draconian than that of the Tories and Lib Dems.
Many people face plans to increase contributions by an average of 3.2%, but, as we heard from several hon. Members, not a penny of the money raised will go into pension schemes. The constituents who contacted me are hard-working, public sector employees carrying out vital jobs. They have kept our public services going and have already made a major contribution to tackling the deficit. They have endured a pay freeze for two years and face an increase of only 1% when the freeze ends—in effect, another pay cut. They are not only angry about the Government’s proposals to make them pay more and work longer for less pension but are incensed at the insensitive and misleading way in which Ministers have dealt with this issue. Above all, they are fed up with hearing about “gold-plated public service pensions” and other misinformation about this complex issue.
The Hutton report clearly rejected the idea that public pensions are “gold-plated”. Figures from the National Association of Pension Funds show that the median salary-linked public sector pension currently paid out is worth £5,600 a year, compared with £5,860 in the private sector. Of course, there are many medium and low-paid workers in the private sector who have little or no pension provision, which is a serious problem, but that is not a reason for public service pensions to be attacked by this Government. The artificial divide that the Government have sought to foster, pitting public against private, is failing those at the heart of the debate—the millions of people who need a good pension on which to retire.
To conclude, it is time for the Government to come clean on this issue and drop the myths and misinformation about public service pensions that they have been peddling for months. Public service pensions were reformed by the previous Government and are both affordable and sustainable. The Pensions Policy Institute has estimated that existing pensions reforms have reduced the immediate cost of benefits by 12.5% and should result in savings of around £13 billion on the NHS, teachers’ and civil service schemes, spread over a 50-year period. The question now is whether the Government choose to negotiate a fair and reasonable deal or continue with their ideological drive to undermine public services, demoralise public service workers and destroy their pensions.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
This has been a wide-ranging debate and I think that there is agreement across the House that pension provision in the long term needs to be affordable, sustainable and fair, not just for public sector workers but for all old age pensioners.
Although we agree on those long-term objectives, the central contention of the debate has been that the short-term measures to reduce the deficit will hit public sector workers but be of no benefit to them. The issue at the heart of the debate is that the proposed 3.2% increase to public sector pension contributions is a straightforward cash grab by the Treasury on public sector workers. It has nothing to do with building long-term sustainability into our pensions system, but is unequivocally a short-term measure to cut the deficit.
Several hon. Members have pointed out that this is not fair and not affordable for a public sector work force who are already feeling the full effects of austerity measures that have gone too far, too fast. Most public sector workers are facing a two-year pay freeze, a 1% pay rise in 2013, increases in VAT and national insurance, and inflation of more than 5%. The cost of their essentials, such as heating, food and fuel, is going through the roof. The pressure on household budgets is intense and is getting worse.
In that context, increasing pension contributions for short-term gain is just the wrong thing to do. It is being done at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way. It carries the risk that large numbers of people, especially part-time workers, will drop out of schemes altogether because of the immediate financial pressures that they face.
I think, and most Members on both sides of the House agree, that public sector pensions matter. They matter to the one in five people who are directly affected. They matter to the rest of us who depend on public services and who realise that our public service work force are critical to the delivery of high-quality services. Above all, they matter to all of us who care about the welfare of older people in retirement. All of us want to enjoy a decent level of income. For parts of the country that have a high dependency on the public sector work force, the issue is even more acute.
David Mundell
What I do not understand about the hon. Lady’s logic is that the Scottish National party has said that it wants to have a referendum on independence for Scotland in the next four years. The area on which that would most significantly impact is pensions and pensioners, yet in her contribution and in the contributions of her fellow SNP Members, we have heard nothing about independence or about how pensions would be provided, guaranteed or sustained in an independent Scotland.
Dr Whiteford
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Order Paper and the motion that we are debating. It will come as no surprise to anybody in the House that I believe in independence—I am an SNP Member. However, we are talking about public sector pensions and the Government’s proposals. It might be a nice distraction for the Government to talk about other issues that are equally relevant to Scotland’s future.
One of the most disappointing things about this debate has been that the Government have tried to defend their proposals by constantly highlighting the disparity between public and private sector pensions. We owe a debt to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for pointing out the detrimental state of private sector pensions. When the Government responded to the interim Hutton report, my understanding was that they accepted its conclusion that pensions should not become a race to the bottom. However, speaker after speaker on the Government Benches has resorted to the argument that because private sector pensions are really poor, public sector pensions should be levelled down. That will not in any way address our pensions challenge. It is not sustainable and it is not fair to anyone in the private or public sector.
We have some of the highest levels of pensioner poverty in Europe. Currently, 30% of pensioner households and a massive 43% of single pensioners, most of whom are women, are in receipt of income-related benefits, whether that is pension credit, housing benefit or council tax benefit. Having large numbers of older people on means-tested benefits is not the way to do things. It is the price that we pay for poor pension provision. It is not an efficient way to support people in retirement.
The other big myth that has been well and truly blown out of the water today is that public sector pensions are gold-plated. Quite simply, they are not. Member after Member has pointed out that most public servants retire on modest incomes. The PCS points out that its average member’s pension is only £4,200 year. That is £80 a week, which is only £4 above the Government’s pensioner poverty figure. If such people’s pensions are reduced or they opt out because of the new conditions and contribution increases, it will simply put the burden back on means-tested benefits to keep people out of abject poverty in their old age.
In local government, in which 67% of the work force are women, the average woman’s pension is only £2,800 a year. Almost half of local government workers are on pensions of less than £3,000, and even in the NHS, in which salaries are much higher because of the professional qualifications involved, three quarters of members are still on pensions of less than £9,000 a year.
The Government have tried to sell us their proposals on the basis that low and middle-income earners will be protected from contribution increases, and may even be better off as a result. That is one of their key claims. However, because of the switch in indexing from RPI to CPI, all public sector workers will lose out in the longer term, and they will all be working longer. That indexing switch has been mentioned in the debate, and I am sorry that more Members did not vote against it when they had the chance to do so back in February. They have a chance to rectify that now, and I hope that they will support us in the Lobby today.
Perhaps the most misleading aspect of the Government’s approach to the contributions increases is that they have said there will be protection for low-paid workers. As the Minister admitted earlier, the contributions of part-time workers will be calculated on the basis of full-time equivalent salaries, which will have massive implications for women, who make up the vast majority of part-time workers. About 32% of the women in our work force work part-time so that they can combine employment with unpaid work in the home or looking after others.
The Government have said that workers on incomes under £15,000 will not pay increased contributions, and that other low earners on up to £21,000 will pay reduced contributions, but when we look at the small print, we see that those thresholds, calculated on the basis of full-time equivalent salaries rather than their actual take-home pay, will mean that even professional people such as nurses and teachers who work part-time will have their pension contributions increased.
Mr Reid
But in Scotland, the Scottish Government decide the pension contributions of teachers, health service workers, local government workers, the police and firemen. If the hon. Lady believes in her argument, does that mean that when the SNP implements the contribution increases in Scotland, it will make an exemption for low-paid part-time workers?
Dr Whiteford
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to point out two things. The first is the Scottish Government’s living wage, which has been raised to £7.20. That will significantly protect the household income of low-paid workers. The second and more substantial is the role of the Scottish Government in the matter. There has been a lot of chat around the Chamber about the room for manoeuvre that the Scottish Government do or do not have. Let me make it clear that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote to the Cabinet Secretary in Scotland, John Swinney, pointing out that the Treasury would cut the budget by £8.4 million a month—that is half a billion pounds over the spending review period—if the Scottish Government did not impose the pension increases.
Dr Whiteford
Not at the moment.
The unions recognise that the Scottish Government have very limited room for manoeuvre. Their choice is very simple: they impose the increases or take the money out of another part of the budget, in other words pay twice. It is clear that even if the Scottish Government were to ignore the requirement and tried to find the money from somewhere else, the Government would cut that money from the budget.
Dr Whiteford
Not on that point.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for pointing out the approach that the Government have taken in the negotiations with the trade unions. It seems to me that they have used a similar approach with the Scottish Government, whose choice has been limited. They have been dictated to, and there has not been a basis for a sensible, grown-up negotiation.
Another point made in the debate has been about the Scottish Public Pensions Agency. The key point is that it was not recommendations that were put forward but a series of theoretical options. That was part of the process of the Hutton consultation, and it was quite proper for the Scottish Government to set out a range of theoretical positions. I am sorry that that has dominated the debate so much.
We all recognise the challenges of pension reform, but we want it to be done in a truly equitable way that does not encourage a race to the bottom. We have to acknowledge the progress that has already been made to put public sector pensions on a more sustainable footing and the mechanisms that already exist, but punishing public sector workers through a short-term tax grab will do absolutely nothing to tackle the inadequate pension provision in the private sector. It is nothing but a tax grab, and it is disappointing that the Government have relied so heavily on the arguments that we have heard today. In tough times, all people realise that they have to take a share of the pain, but public sector workers do not want to carry the can.
Scotland (Poverty)
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sandra Osborne
My point is that the cuts have not been made in a fair and even manner, as the Government promised. I will develop that point later.
It is all too evident that the impact will fall disproportionately on vulnerable groups and on those who deliver the services on which those groups depend. Those are not just my views; there has been widespread condemnation from campaigning groups and third-sector organisations in Scotland that the budget and austerity measures will further increase poverty and inequality.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said, in yesterday’s autumn statement we heard of further measures. The Chancellor announced the expansion of free nursery places for two-year-olds, helping 260,000 children. But, alongside that, he announced that he would be taking more than £1.3 billion a year from families by failing to go ahead with the planned additional £110 rise in child tax credits and by freezing working tax credits.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing today’s debate. This is a very important subject to discuss on St. Andrew’s day. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the poorest families will suffer a disproportionate impact from these cuts, and that the 20% of the poorest families in Scotland will bear the brunt?
Sandra Osborne
That is the whole point of raising this debate today.
All this has happened despite the fact that when the Chancellor announced the rise in tax credits he said that it would support 4 million lower-income families, helping to ensure that there would be no adverse impact on child poverty. As the Minister knows, there is now a law relating to child poverty. The Chancellor has now taken that extra support away from the 4 million families. In its distributional analysis of yesterday’s measures, the Treasury has admitted that, as a result of the decisions taken by the Government, the number of children living in households with incomes below 60% of the median will increase by 100,000 in 2012-13—which will mean more children living in poverty.
Sandra Osborne
I was about to talk about people who are living in fuel poverty who are spending a disproportionate level of already inadequate income on basic energy bills. Almost 1 million households, more than one in three Scots, now struggle to heat their homes. However, the SNP has cut the budget to help tackle fuel poverty by almost a third, down from £70.9 million in 2010-11 to £48 million in 2011-12. Dr Brenda Boardman from Oxford university, previously lauded by First Minister Alex Salmond, has said that Scotland has some of the worst fuel poverty in the UK. She describes the SNP’s cut in the fuel poverty fund as a real slap in the face for the fuel poor.
Dr Whiteford
I know that fuel poverty is something that is also taken extremely seriously in my constituency, partly because people do not have access to social tariffs on low incomes. They also often have trouble accessing broadband. But will the hon. Lady accept that the SNP Government have done more than previous Labour Governments ever did to address fuel poverty in Scotland, and are making record levels of investment in their energy assistance package and with other measures?
Sandra Osborne
I think that they flatter to deceive. Measures have been cut, including what I have just described. As I say, it is not just from me, it is from a very eminent professional who is an expert in the field. At the end of the day the Scottish Government will decide how to implement the budget in Scotland.
Not surprisingly, poverty means lower levels of mental wellbeing, shorter lifespans and more ill health. Those in the lowest 20% of household incomes, particularly women, are far more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and attempted suicide, while men living in the most deprived areas have a life expectancy of more than 11 years shorter than those in the 20% least deprived areas of Scotland. The situation in Scotland is very serious. Here I would like to pay tribute to Campbell Christie, the former STUC leader and another truly great Scot, who recently passed away but who chaired the Scottish Commission on Public Services. Its report said:
“Members of the commission have been struck by just how much public spending is skewed by that bottom 20% in terms of poverty, unemployment, health and all the factors that go with it—and how little progress has been made on that bottom 20%.
If you are going to do anything, you should relentlessly target resources at the bottom 20%. That would bring Scotland up overall: it's not just a moral case for social justice; there's a strong economic argument too.”
A recent national survey revealed that six of the 10 worst areas of Britain are on the west coast of Scotland, including areas of Glasgow.
In any debate on poverty, certain key assertions must be made. First, income and material conditions remain the most fundamental determining dimensions of poverty. Political and policy emphasis on non-income dimensions of poverty must not be used to draw attention away from the fundamental causes of poverty—lack of money.
The policy can work. The Labour Government's commitments and policy action that boosted pensions, benefits, tax credits and wages and removed some of the barriers to work have had an impact, with child and pensioner poverty significantly lower than in 1997. Other policy interventions that should be welcomed include a focus on more equal health outcomes and commitment to the idea of a living wage, although when that was put forward in South Ayrshire by Labour, the SNP Tory administration voted it down. We need more investment and income maximisation, statutory commitments to tackle child poverty and improved access to debt solutions.
Labour made huge strides in government, both in Westminster and at Holyrood, to tackle youth unemployment in Scotland. Again, the clock has been turned back. Youth unemployment is rising fast. Behind these figures is a generation of young Scots, rich in talent, full of potential, with a hunger to work. Yesterday’s announcement in the autumn statement was too little, too late. It will be next April before it even kicks in, which has meant two years of inaction, and equates to £121 million a year, a fraction of the £600 million this year alone which Labour would spend on a youth jobs fund through repeating the bank bonus levy.
Dr Whiteford
Will the hon. Lady join me in welcoming the initiatives of the Scottish Government to ensure that every 16 to 19-year-old in Scotland who is not in full-time education will have a training place or an apprenticeship or a job?
Sandra Osborne
I would very much welcome any measures that are taken in Scotland on youth unemployment, but it does not help when the SNP Government choke off opportunity by cutting funding for the country’s colleges. I attended the graduation ceremony at Ayr college the other week and I was very impressed by the students’ achievements, but the level of cuts that the college was facing—10% this year and 20% over the next two years—was very depressing. There have already been job losses and the college has been told to concentrate on 16 to 19-year-olds. That is fine, except that it takes places away from adult learners.
I received all my education, such as it is, as an adult, and I want young people as they grow older to have cradle-to-grave education, not just between the ages of 16 and 19. That is also needed for the economy.
I refer now to research from the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield university. It calculates that the headline total of 2.6 million men and women on incapacity benefits is set to be cut by nearly 1 million by 2014. Most of these will be existing claimants who will lose their entitlement. The report shows that, because of the reforms, 600,000 are set to be pushed out of the benefits system altogether, forcing a big increase in reliance on other household members for financial support.
The researchers also show that by far the largest impact will fall on the older industrial areas of the north, Scotland and Wales, where local economies have been struggling for years to cope with job loss and where the prospects of former claimants finding work are weakest. Glasgow looks set to be hit 10 times harder than, for example, Kingston upon Thames. In common with many of my colleagues here, these are just the types of areas that we represent where it has been very difficult to recover from industrial decline in the past. This is not going to help.
Ann McKechin
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct—that is a point I am about to make. I, too, represent an area that has a university community, and we continually have difficulties about multi-occupancy. Again, the UK Government have completely failed to consider new regulations put in place as a result of legislation that has gone through the Scottish Parliament.
Many local authorities and social landlords have progressively moved away from multi-occupancy lets due to problems with management and its unpopularity with other tenants and communities. In Angus, the difference between the rental level for a one-bedroom home and a shared home rate is £20.77 a week. For people who are unlucky enough to live in rural Aberdeenshire, it is £49.61 a week, because they are sitting in the midst of an oil economy, with rentals to match. Inevitably, people will be pushed into our cities, regardless of where their job is, in a desperate effort to find accommodation.
As I have mentioned, the UK Government have given no thought as to how local communities may feel about the expansion of multi-occupancy housing in their areas. I know from experience in my constituency that there have been examples of the dumping of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation from other local authority areas, because those areas had no or very few such places available. I can only imagine where all those hundreds of people in north Ayrshire, for example, will have to go—I think that most of them will end up in Glasgow.
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Lady is making some important points about the housing situation. Will she reflect on the situation for pensioners who might also be affected by the under-occupancy rules that are coming in and the fact that suitable one-bedroom properties are simply not available, particularly those on a flat level for people with mobility issues?
Ann McKechin
The hon. Lady makes a good point. I know that that matter is not currently covered in the regulations proposed by the Government. However, should there be any further expansion, we would be looking at something close to a total collapse of social housing, because of the sheer numbers of people, particularly pensioners, who are living alone in properties with two or more bedrooms.
One change due in 2013 is that housing benefit will be restricted for working-age claimants in the social rented sector to those who are occupying a larger property than their household size. Do the Government know how many will be impacted by that change? Why do I bother to ask them, because they have no desire to find out?
It has been estimated from the family resources survey that Scotland-wide there are approximately 100,000 households in the social rented sector in receipt of housing benefit where the accommodation is currently under-occupied. We do not, however, know how many of those are rented to retired tenants compared with those of working age. Glasgow Housing Association, which is Scotland’s largest social landlord, has estimated that roughly 13% of their entire housing stock will be affected by just that one change alone. That represents thousands of tenants in just one city in our country.
Such a change may occur simply because an adult child leaves home, even if the family still have children of school age. A family may be forced to move out of a property that they have lived in for many years and in some instances to move many miles from the community in which they are settled—or they might fall into rent arrears, or they could just eat less, or they could not heat their home. That is the reality of the real choices that thousands of low-income families will now face.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
It will be difficult to follow my two colleagues, who have explained the scourge of poverty in terms of the proportion of people living in poverty in Scotland and the shame that that brings on us as a nation. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) on securing this debate.
I shall confine my comments to a group of people who, by definition, find a much higher proportion of themselves living in poverty—namely, those who are disabled or have a disability. All the problems that, as we have already heard, face families living in poverty tend to be amplified if one of the members of those families happens to have a disability. We know that 21% of families who have one person with a disability living with them are living in poverty compared with 16% of the general population. That figure increases for children: 25% of children living in families with a disabled person live in poverty compared with 18% of children living in families with no one who is disabled.
The concern that I want to get over to the Minister, and to which I hope he will respond, is that those figures are bad enough, but the actions of this Government are about to make matters far worse. Despite the impression given in the tabloids by stories of benefit scroungers and people who have languished on incapacity benefit or disabled benefits for years, employment among disabled people had actually improved over the last 10 years of the Labour Government. The employment gap between those disabled and those non-disabled in 2002 was 36%. By 2010, by the time the Labour party lost power, that gap was down to 29% and all the indicators were that it was improving, so many disabled people were in work. However, it is still the case that anyone with a disability is far less likely to be in work than those who do not have a disability, and therefore dependent on benefits.
What happens to the benefits system? What changes will be made to save the £18 billion that the Government are trying to strip out of the welfare system? Those changes will impact even more directly on those who are the most vulnerable—those who have a disability. What is of concern is not just that individuals and their families will face reduced incomes but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said, the reduction in the money that is available to be spent in those communities and the fact that the communities themselves will become even poorer than they are at the moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock mentioned the report from Sheffield Hallam university, written by Christina Beatty and Steve Fothergill, called “Incapacity Benefit Reform: the local, regional and national impact”. That report makes incredibly interesting reading. It shows not only that there is a concentration of people with disabilities who are living on disability benefits, whether that is incapacity benefit, employment and support allowance or disability allowance, but that it correlates exactly to the areas of high unemployment and the areas of industrial decline. So it comes as no great surprise that, of the top 20 districts where the share of adults claiming incapacity benefit is the highest, three of them are in Scotland. Glasgow comes in at 12.3%, but is followed closely by Inverclyde and West Dunbartonshire. In the bottom 10 districts, of the areas with the least number of people on incapacity benefit not a single one is in Scotland and that in itself acts as a stark reminder that there are areas in Scotland, particularly west central Scotland, that have suffered not just the depression and lack of jobs caused by deindustrialisation but, resulting from that, an increase in the number of people who not only suffer ill health and disability but, as a consequence, are claiming benefit. Any cuts to those benefits will fall particularly heavily on those areas.
The figures in the work that Christina Beatty and Steve Fothergill have done are UK-wide, so we must assume that 10% of those people live in Scotland. Those figures show that, as a result of Government changes already announced, in Scotland alone, 97,000 fewer people will be claiming incapacity benefit. Even more worryingly, 58,000 will be removed from benefits all together. How will that happen? The last Labour Government had already introduced changes to reform incapacity benefit and to move people on to the employment and support allowance. The new Government have speeded up that move and have also cut down on the amount of money to be spent. That is where a great deal of the savings will come from.
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Lady’s constituency, like my own, was part of the pilot scheme that trialled the new work capability assessment. My view is that it has not been working and instead has been causing great anxiety and distress to disabled people. More importantly, the successful appeal rate is out of all proportion to any system that is working. Something like 70% of appeals are proving successful, where people have support from advocacy agencies. That system should go back to the drawing board, but I am also concerned that the burden will start falling even more so on unpaid carers and other family members for people who have been taken out of the system. Does the hon. Lady share my concerns on that?
Dame Anne Begg
Those concerns are shared by all of us. It has been very difficult to get robust figures about the numbers who are being migrated from incapacity benefit on to employment and support allowance, and how many of them will fall out of the benefits system all together or find themselves on jobseeker’s allowance as an alternative. The early indication from the pilot that took place in both Aberdeen and Burnley would suggest that about 30% of those on incapacity benefit will move to JSA. That one single move is immediately a loss of £20, or slightly more, a week for that family. We do not know whether those figures are robust but we do know that, for new claimants, it is far less than that. Part of the reason why the tabloid press has managed to create the impression that there are lots of people languishing on incapacity benefit or disability benefit who do not deserve it is that they conflate the proportions who are new claimants getting the benefit with those already on the benefit but who have been migrated across. Potentially, 30% will be losing £20 or more a week.
We also know that the Welfare Reform Bill proposes to limit contributory employment and support allowance to one year. In areas such as mine and the one represented by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), where it is more likely that people will live in a household with some income, because unemployment is relatively low, so a partner, husband or wife might be working, those people will lose benefits altogether because they will not qualify for the income-related benefit that would replace it. That is why 58,000 are likely to fall out of the benefits system completely. These are people who have paid into the system all their lives. They thought that, when things turned difficult for them, when something happened and they were not able to work anymore, the welfare state would be there for them and national insurance would work as the name suggests—as an insurance that they would get that contributory benefit. This Government have decided that that is not good enough and that this group will qualify only for employment and support allowance for a year. In a year, someone might have managed only to get a diagnosis. They might have only just started their cancer treatment, they might still be getting worse but not be bad enough to be in the support group, with a degenerative neurological condition that has just been diagnosed. After a year, their money will stop if they are in the work-related activity group of ESA.
Oral Answers to Questions
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Moore
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, but I do agree that we are determined to see Britain take a leading role in this important technology. That is why the £1 billion of investment is still available and why Peterhead and other parts of the UK will be able to bid for it.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I hope that the Secretary of State will welcome this morning’s announcement by Scottish and Southern Energy and Shell that they are bringing the project at Peterhead one step closer. What assurances can he give that the project will not be shelved, as the last Peterhead project for carbon capture and storage was by the previous Government, and that we will see this investment?
Michael Moore
In a week when a major international bank has talked about the impact that the uncertainty over independence is having on renewables investment in Scotland, we will take no lessons from the SNP about uncertainty. As I said to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), it is vital that Peterhead and other places come forward with their bids, and £1 billion is available to support them.
Oral Answers to Questions
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Moore
That was one of the key issues that the hon. Lady wanted to raise when I met her a week or so ago to discuss the economy in Ayrshire. As a Government, we are committed to the implementation of superfast broadband across the United Kingdom, and we are in discussions with the Scottish Government on how they should go about that in Scotland. Such provision is vital in Ayrshire, the borders and all parts of the country. I am happy to work with her and others, including the Scottish Government, to ensure that we achieve it.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to read the Government expenditure and revenue study published this morning, which shows that the Scottish economy is outperforming that of the UK and carrying a lower deficit? Will he take the opportunity to congratulate the Scottish Government on their efforts to promote stability through economic growth and recovery?
Michael Moore
That is a typically interesting interpretation of the figures in this morning’s report, which show that, on pretty well every measure, Scotland is running at a deficit. That highlights the volatility and difficulties associated with the different measures. It is vital that we get Scotland’s economy back on the right footing. That is why, as a Government, we are cutting corporation tax, keeping interest rates low and reducing the burden on national insurance. I am happy to work with the Scottish Government, who have fantastic powers at their disposal to ensure that the economy grows. We need to work in partnership.
Oral Answers to Questions
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
1. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the awarding of contracts for the Work programme in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
9. What weighting was given to the involvement of voluntary sector organisations in the assessment process of tenders of prime contractors for the Work programme in Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
Over the past year I have had numerous discussions with ministerial colleagues on the development of the Work programme. The Government are encouraging prime contractors to engage voluntary and private sector organisations in the delivery of the programme.
Michael Moore
The hon. Gentleman is making a very serious allegation, which my right hon. Friend absolutely refutes. As with any other instance in which people think something inappropriate is happening, there are appropriate channels through which it can be pursued. If there is some evidence on that or any other matter, those channels should be followed.
Dr Whiteford
I declare an interest as a non-remunerated director of the charity Turning Point Scotland.
There has been great unease in Scotland about the tendering process for the Work programme contracts. The tender document clearly outlined the expectation that at least 30% of a prime contractor’s subcontracts should be delivered by voluntary sector providers, and it stated:
“This will be a key factor in the tender assessment process.”
Yet the successful bids commit to a mere 8% and 6% voluntary sector delivery respectively. I hope that the Secretary of State shares my concern, and my question to him is simple: what went wrong?
Michael Moore
I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s work in the voluntary sector, and I believe that it has a very important role to play not just in getting people back to work but in many aspects of Scottish life. Let us remember that the Work programme is a step change in the provision of support for people to get back into work. We are determined to ensure that we tackle all the problems that have afflicted different parts of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
The invitation to tender document was absolutely explicit about the criteria, and they were the ones against which bids were measured. As far as the future involvement of the voluntary sector is concerned, the two preferred bidders have indicated that they fully intend to engage with the sector.
Scotland Bill
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fiona O’Donnell
I will make my contribution brief as well, although I shall not speak at quite the same speed as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). He reminded me of a child who needed to go to the toilet as he delivered his speech so terribly quickly. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said that he had risen to speak with a heavy heart. I am rising with a sore head, and that is not just about the sleep deprivation that I mentioned earlier. It is because I honestly cannot understand what possessed the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar to table this new clause. He cannot bring a proposal before the Committee and then not want us to discuss its possible implications. He cannot tell us what any Scottish Government, even his own, might choose to do with such powers, given that he voted against the sell-off of the forests in England while his Government tried to sell off the forests in Scotland. It is essential that we scrutinise the implications of the new clause. It exposes the fact that the SNP is good at minority reports and at gesture politics, but not good at government.
Dr Whiteford
I will take entirely personally the hon. Lady’s positive comment about minority reports. I took part in a debate on the issue of time zones a few months ago, and I was struck by the strength of feeling among many Government Members who represent English constituencies who would really like to see the time zones in this country change. My worry is that that would plunge my constituents into darkness on winter mornings, meaning that they would have to contend not only with icy roads and low temperatures but with limited amounts of sunlight. A Scottish Government would have no room in any negotiations on that matter, should a Government in this place choose to impose a change to the existing arrangements. As I understand it, the whole point of my hon. Friend’s new clause is to strengthen the likelihood of maintaining the existing arrangements, not to undermine them.
Fiona O’Donnell
I am still struggling to follow this argument. The SNP is asking for a power that it says it has no intention of using because the effects would be undesirable. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar seemed to say that, should the time zone change here, he would recommend that the Scottish Government fell in line with such a decision as he had no intention of having two different time zones. It has already been pointed out that we are far more likely to end up with two time zones if we devolve this power. It would be easier for such a decision to be taken simply on the basis of taking English concerns into account.
Oral Answers to Questions
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
I will seek out that information for my hon. Friend and write to him.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The changes announced last week to social fund crisis loans will cut the level and availability of loans for essential items such as beds and cookers. Does the Minister agree that that will push vulnerable people on lower incomes towards high-cost lending and into the arms of loan sharks, exacerbating problems that Scotland already has?
David Mundell
I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s analysis. I am surprised to hear again from the Scottish National party that it does not welcome the devolution of elements of the social fund to the Scottish Parliament.
Scotland Bill
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Does the hon. Lady share my experience that the abuse of air weapons often involves not only the cases that make the newspapers, but the distressing circumstances of much-loved family pets being injured or killed when shot at? Those stories never make the headlines, but they nevertheless cause great distress in communities.
Cathy Jamieson
I absolutely agree. Of course, those are the types of incidents that local newspapers report far more regularly than national newspapers.
Information about the incident in Auchinleck quickly got into the public domain, some of which was not absolutely accurate. A number of school pupils were injured, albeit by what the hon. Member for The Cotswolds described as a toy BB gun—I have more to say on that in a moment—and required hospital treatment, so I hope that he is not suggesting that it is not necessary to have a serious look at how that gun got into the hands of the people who used it, what they were doing with it and why they became involved in such an incident. To be honest, I recognise where he is coming from in relation to his sporting and shooting interests, but I find it difficult to understand in any event why anyone living in an urban environment would require an air weapon in their home. It is time we looked at the issue, and I hope that that is something a licensing or other regime in Scotland could deal with.
I want to say something about firearms in general. I accept many of the points made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), but I do not believe that at this stage we require responsibility for the whole range of firearms legislation to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. However, I do think that it is incumbent on the UK Government—perhaps the Minister will indicate what discussions he will have or has had with Home Office colleagues—to ensure that the provisions of the 1968 Act still stand the test of time. The worst possible thing that could happen is that we devolve something and discover subsequently that we will have to revisit it, for example if the definition of what constitutes an airgun is no longer seen to meet the needs of the legislation we are devolving.
I want to say something on BB guns, because I know that in many instances they are the weapons—I use the word “weapons” rather than “toys” because of the damage they can inflict—that cause exactly the problems that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) identified. I also believe that there is a gap in the legislation, because those weapons appear to be easily available, particularly to children and young people. The fact that they are not covered by legislation sends entirely the wrong message. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister will have discussions with his Home Office colleagues to take that forward.
I appreciate that other Members want to comment in the debate and so do not intend to speak for much longer. I feel that the time is right, and I have given the matter careful consideration because my initial response when Justice Minister, as I have said, was that we should not legislate or press for legislation in haste. It is four years since that time, and considerably longer since the incident in Easterhouse, so no one could accuse us of legislating in haste when we take these measures forward.
David Mundell
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Benton.
I can assure the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) that nothing that the Government put forward this evening is in any way determined by the fact that these proceedings are televised. I hope that we are bringing forward a reasoned response to important issues that have been raised in the debate on these amendments.
I wanted, during this discussion, to clarify the SNP’s position, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will understand why. I think that the logical explanation is that we now have devolution in the SNP, with a London SNP that is proposing an amendment to clause 11 and an Edinburgh SNP that is in agreement with it as it stands. In those circumstances, I find it extremely odd that the hon. Gentleman suggested that he was going to push this matter to a Division. He will have seen the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee report, which, in paragraphs 142 to 144, confirms that it was a unanimous view of that Committee that clause 11 should be supported. It states:
“We note that this excludes those air rifles, air guns or air pistols which are of a type declared by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of the 1968 Act to be ‘specially dangerous’. These particular weapons are already banned and we see no reason why this would change.”
The Committee went on unanimously to recommend support for clause 11.
Dr Whiteford
I have here a copy of the Scotland Bill Committee report, which came out last week. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at paragraph 142 and the footnote attached to it, he will see that in fact there was a division on that point and the view was not unanimous at all.
David Mundell
The hon. Lady will also be aware of the text of the LCM to be put forward by the Scottish Government. Her Scottish Parliament colleague, Fiona Hyslop, kindly sent it to me, listing several clauses to which the Scottish Government want changes made. Clause 11 is clearly stated not to be one of them.
Dr Whiteford
May I once again draw the Minister’s attention to paragraph 142 and footnote 28, which clearly show that two members of the Committee, Brian Adam and Tricia Marwick, caused a split on the issue? Will he acknowledge that for the record?
David Mundell
I acknowledge for the record that the vote took place, but I also point out to the hon. Lady annex A, where the minority views on the issues on which her colleagues felt particularly strongly are set out, clearly stating their disagreement.
Tom Greatrex
I support clause 12, but I have a couple of questions about its implications. As the Committee will be aware, this clause and attendant issues were the subject of detailed scrutiny by the Calman commission. It was corporate insolvency practitioners who pressed the case on that commission for introducing such a clause, which effectively re-reserves some aspects of corporate insolvency work.
The Scottish National party has responded with a blanket, knee-jerk reaction against the proposal, because it does not believe that powers should be re-reserved. The Labour party takes a different view. The Calman commission examined the range of powers as a whole, and determined which, in Scotland’s best interests, should be devolved and which should continue to be reserved. As we all know, it concluded that there should be some changes, but not too many. We accept that recommendation, and also the comments of the LCM Committee, but the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations—from which Members will no doubt have received a briefing—has expressed concern about the implications for registered social landlords. Housing policy is, of course, devolved.
I am aware that, as no registered social landlords have been affected yet, the position is theoretical. However, on 25 February the Secretary of State told the convenor of the LCM Committee that the Government did not intend to cause any difficulty relating to housing policy, that they would consider introducing section 104 orders when that was necessary and appropriate, and that discussions were taking place between the Scotland Office and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. May I ask the Minister to confirm his intentions, so that we can ensure that the federation’s concern is not used unduly as an excuse to oppose the clause merely because it re-reserves a power, and that it is being dealt with?
Dr Whiteford
I am glad to have an opportunity to respond to the amendment in a way that does not involve any sort of knee-jerk reaction. I intend to discuss the substance of the issue, which is the power to transfer power over all insolvency matters and all aspects of company liquidation back to the House of Commons. Currently, certain aspects are devolved.
When the Commission on Scottish Devolution examined the issue it identified some shortcomings in the existing set-up, notably a degree of overlap in responsibility between the rules relating to insolvency governed here and those governed in Holyrood, and a need for consistency across the United Kingdom. As many Members will know, the Calman commission responded to the concerns expressed by, in particular, the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Law Society of Scotland by recommending that the United Kingdom’s Insolvency Service should be responsible for the rules to be applied by insolvency practitioners on both sides of the border, with the consent of the Scottish Parliament, and that the Scottish Parliament should retain its legislative competence over corporate insolvency.
Members will note that clause 12 goes way beyond the Calman recommendation. It would transfer powers over all aspects of company liquidation to the House of Commons. I urge the Committee to think very carefully about the clause, because I believe it is a rather blunt instrument which could have a number of undesirable and unintended consequences. I suspect that there is broad agreement in the Committee that the existing legislative framework pertaining to insolvency in Scotland could be strengthened and improved, but the real question is how we should go about it. Should we, as the clause suggests, simply re-reserve powers—which might be a quick and dirty way of dealing with the matter—or is there a better way of achieving the desired outcomes of consistency and efficiency?
I fear that clause 12 will create as many problems as it solves. We should bear in mind why the powers were devolved in the first place. The purpose was largely to take account of the distinctiveness of the Scottish legal system. When Professor George Gretton, the Scottish law commissioner and expert on insolvency, gave evidence to the Calman commission, he stated emphatically:
“Insolvency law has to fit in within the general corpus of the law, including such matters as the different court structures, the different systems of what Scots lawyers call diligence, the different systems of property law, and the law of voidable transactions.”
He pointed out that the aspects of corporate insolvency law that had already been devolved by the Scotland Act were pretty much aligned with the areas that were peculiar to Scots law. The issue was thought through carefully in the first place, and I feel that we too should think carefully before unravelling the existing provisions without taking account of the wider implications.The chair of the Scottish Law Commission, Lord Drummond Young, has also expressed concern about the implications for the sensible reform of Scottish commercial law, should these powers be re-reserved.
As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) has already pointed out, some of the deepest concerns about the consequences of the clause have been expressed by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, which has argued against it in the strongest possible terms. Members of that association own and manage 47% of Scotland’s affordable rented housing stock. They have an annual turnover of about £1 billion, and assets worth about £8 billion, so we should not take their concerns lightly. Housing is a fully devolved matter, and the Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate on all aspects of housing policy. There have been a number of changes to housing policy since the advent of devolution, as well as significant policy developments. This has been a dynamic area of activity in the life of the Scottish Parliament.
Back in 2001, in an amendment to the Scotland Act 1998, responsibility for legislation relating to the insolvency of social landlords in Scotland was devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The amendment order was agreed unanimously, with cross-party support, in the Scottish Parliament, and the provision was passed in Westminster. The amendment enabled the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 to address the potential insolvency of registered social landlords. The 2010 Act established the Scottish housing regulator as an independent body to safeguard tenants’ interests and regulate the financial well-being and governance of registered social landlords.
Assessing the risk of insolvency among registered social landlords is an integral aspect of the existing regulatory regime. The 2010 Act also gave additional powers to the Scottish housing regulator to act quickly when a registered social landlord was facing insolvency, thereby safeguarding the interests of tenants and of the wider social landlords sector. There have been no cases of insolvency among Scottish registered social landlords in the past 40 years, but those representing the sector are not at all complacent, given the economic environment in which they are operating and the experiences that they have seen in other parts of the UK. They believe that there needs to be provision for a regulatory authority to deal with such matters in a timely and appropriate way, should cases of insolvency arise.
The regulatory framework that has been established in Scotland is designed to reduce the possibility of a social landlord becoming insolvent by preventing the situation from occurring. I am sure that Members will appreciate the importance of that, not only for tenants and social landlords but for the wider housing sector and other stakeholders. In particular, effective regulation is crucial to the ability of registered social landlords to access lending at competitive prices. The Council of Mortgage Lenders made that clear in its response to the 2007 consultation, and it is estimated that Scottish registered social landlords have saved about £70 million in the past five years by being able to access lower lending margins than are available in the commercial sector.
All this provides a practical illustration of why a strong regulatory framework is important, and why these matters were devolved in the first place. We really should not be rash enough to dismantle that framework. We must also bear in mind the fact that, if we pass clause 12, any future measures relating to the insolvency of registered social landlords would require legislation at Westminster, with all the difficulties of securing time that that involves. We need to recognise the practical benefits of devolution in this area, and not try to reinvent the wheel in our efforts to tidy up the loose ends in the wider insolvency provisions.
In housing, there is a strong case for preserving the coherence and alignment of the legislative policy making and regulatory frameworks. This would be broken if insolvency powers over registered social landlords were to be re-reserved. If the main reason for clause 12 is to tidy up insolvency provision from a UK point of view, it would be most regrettable if it were to make housing policy significantly more untidy in the process. I have a real concern that, in time, such a dislocation of policy from regulation could lead to delays, fragmentation and inappropriate decision making. It would be a retrograde step, and it would reverse recent progressive measures that have had the support of the Scottish Parliament right across the political spectrum.
I urge Members to look again at this matter. We need modernisation of the insolvency provisions; that will be very welcome. This is not the way to do it, however. There are many ways of doing it, and key to the process will be better inter-governmental working. I would also draw the House’s attention to the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee, which took these concerns seriously and recommended that legislative consent on this clause should be subject to certain provisions being drafted. We are not in a position to see those provisions today, so I would urge Members to oppose the clause in the interim, until we have a workable and effective solution before us.
Michael Connarty
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who has both conflated a lot of issues that are of obvious concern to her party and not been quite open about what happened on the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee. We have heard what seems to be a strange argument: the SNP is for devolution unless it does not win the vote, because on a devolved committee the SNP moved an amendment and lost. Then the committee concluded that it was
“content to recommend to the Scottish Parliament that it should give its legislative consent to the provisions in the Scotland Bill relating to the re-reservation of insolvency, subject to provisions being drafted which will secure capacity for devolved legislation to affect the winding-up of Registered Social Landlords”.
On the one hand the hon. Lady is conflating lots of issues of obvious concern to her party, but on the other she is denying the democratic process when it goes against her in the devolved Parliament.
The third thing that the hon. Lady has done is make a case as though that case were not recognised by everyone, on all sides, in the evidence given to this Parliament. Hopefully, the Government are listening to that, and those on our Front Bench have stressed the same points. However, there is another fault that people show when trying to enthuse people—I think that the common phrase is “overegging the pudding”. There has not been a bankruptcy or insolvency of a registered social landlord in Scotland in 40 years, because of the way in which their arrangements are structured. I was active in the early days of the housing association movement as a leader of a council in Scotland. Across all the parties we created a structure that mainly secures registered social landlords from the problems experienced by those landlords who are thirsting for profit and therefore taking risks by borrowing and overextending themselves. Registered social landlords are to be commended because they tend not to get themselves into such situations, which is one of the reasons we set them up as we did.
Everyone takes seriously the point made by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, including those on our Front Bench and, I hope, the Government. Therefore, we should have the necessary safeguards to allow the points made by the SFHA to be taken on board. The SFHA is worried about the speed of action should there ever be a problem, and hopefully the final legislation will recognise that. However, we cannot conclude from this that we should therefore go against the recommendation of the Scottish Parliament’s Bill Committee and against common sense in having a system across the UK to address a problem that faces a lot of the corporate bodies and private organisations in the UK at the moment.
Dr Whiteford
This is an argument that has come directly from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, which is concerned about preventing such problems from occurring in the first place. It is the SFHA that is worried about the environment in which it currently operates. I know that we will shortly debate housing benefit in this House, but one of the SFHA’s concerns is that changes to housing benefit could have serious repercussions for cash flow. It is concerned that the financial position is not as secure as it might have been. That is why we have to take this issue seriously. I wish that I could share the hon. Gentleman’s optimism, but hoping that something might come forward is no way to go through the parliamentary process.
Michael Connarty
Allow me to recommend that optimism to the hon. Lady, who is new to the House. That optimism, which I have carried with me for 18 years, might stand her in good stead if she survives as long as I have in this place. They do say—I am quoting Gramsci, the socialist—that pessimism of the intellect should breed optimism of the will. She will certainly require that again and again if she sits on the SNP Benches in this place, I can tell her that.
I am deeply involved in fighting a case involving a bad insolvency in my constituency. In a sense, I have had to step over a line that I have drawn for myself since devolution, where I have had to say, “This is not a matter for me: I have a remit as a UK parliamentarian and my colleagues”—Members of the Scottish Parliament—“have a remit devolved to them.” I try to keep the two apart quite strictly. I try to encourage devolved organisations to write not to me but to my MSP colleagues, and to engage them properly in the process. I was involved in the scrutiny of bankruptcy in Scotland legislation here in Westminster between ’92 and ’97, and knew quite a lot about that. I therefore find the current environment frustrating, as many companies are facing serious challenges because of economic conditions and are having to go through the insolvency process.
Although the case I took on involves what is currently a devolved matter, I knew that re-reservation was being reconsidered, so my conscience was somewhat assuaged. The reality is that the insolvency process is not very pleasant. It is never pleasant for people to be bankrupted or to have their goods and chattels sold by a bankruptcy administrator who seems to be their friend until the moment when they sign the form, and who then turns out to be their enemy. In the case I am currently involved in, there is a house for sale. The insolvency administrator has allowed it to be vandalised, so quite a lot of the financial benefit to the creditors has been lost, and seems to be ignoring any offer from anyone to buy the property.
This issue should be a responsibility across all the Chambers, and I think it makes sense for the same rules to apply in Scotland as in the rest of the UK. The Bill’s provisions would bring them into line. We should all realise that it does not matter which side of the border people are living on or trading in, and that they must be dealt with properly by the insolvency laws and its practitioners. I have serious reservations about the way they are currently regulated. I look forward to this being returned to being a reserved matter so that I can fully engage in it.
Dr Whiteford
Will the Minister clarify exactly which issues remain outstanding with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations that necessitate a further meeting?
David Mundell
Following our meeting with the federation, I wrote extensively on the specific points that I had raised. My interpretation concerned whether Westminster would be as responsive as the Scottish Parliament if new issues arose. It is extremely important to take on board that this is about new issues and not about the adequacy of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010. That Act is in place, as are the arrangements for insolvency. The issue is whether, if the arrangements that have been put in place did not work and other arrangements had to be brought in, that could be done expeditiously in the House of Commons, and I believe it could. Indeed, one Opposition Member is the former distinguished Communities Minister of the Scottish Parliament and I cannot imagine that she would allow the Government to sit idly by while there were requests for changes to insolvency procedures in respect of registered social landlords in Scotland. That issue is not a basis for continuing concern, but we are committed to the dialogue involving the Insolvency Service and the federation.
It is important to re-emphasise the point that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk confirmed—that the Scottish Parliament’s current powers in relation to RSLs are not whole powers regarding RSL insolvency. They relate only to the winding up and only where it concerns a moratorium on the disposal and management of property held by an RSL, so the Scottish Parliament is not currently able to make provision for all aspects of the law on RSLs. The view of the Calman commission was that the ability to make provision in this area was fragmented and should be returned to Westminster to deal with that fragmentation. Clearly, there are Members who could never agree with the return of powers to Westminster, however sensible that might be, but I hope that on this occasion they will accept that the measure will benefit Scottish business and will not be detrimental to the RSL sector. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will not divide on clause 12.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.