Food Banks (Scotland)

Debate between Gregg McClymont and Eilidh Whiteford

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Whiteford]

I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because if we do not understand the causes of this crisis and articulate them clearly and properly, we cannot take effective action. We have seen his own Government in previous generations throw money at problems but with no, or negligible, impact. Until we understand what is driving this crisis, there is absolutely no point flinging words around Westminster Hall.

The fact that 50% of people claiming food parcels are working is—

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

No, I will not give way again, because the quality of the last intervention by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) left quite a lot to be desired.

[Gregg McClymont]

It will be of higher quality, I promise. [Laughter.]

[Dr Whiteford]

I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman will have a higher quality of intervention, but I will not give way at this point, simply because I am conscious of time. Clearly, I have some things to say in this debate and I want to get through them in the time allotted.

The other 50% of the increase in demand for food parcels is from people whose benefits have been delayed or who are having problems with the administration of the benefit system. There is no doubt that the dramatic increase in the demand for emergency support is a consequence of the recession, and the increased numbers of people who face sudden unemployment, or cuts in their working hours or real-terms cuts in their wages. However, demand has also been increased by the austerity measures—the response to the recession by the Government—and the disproportionate hit that people on low incomes, particularly those who wholly or partially depend on benefits to keep them above the breadline, have had to bear in the raft of financial cuts that we have seen during the last two years.

The changes to the benefit system have placed greater restrictions on people, and the stringent time limits on some benefits—such as employment and support allowance, and housing benefit—will only make that problem worse. Experts are warning that the real bite of these measures is still to come.

Aberdeenshire was part of the pilot scheme for the work capability assessment. I am already seeing people at my surgeries who have been assessed as fit to work who are simply not fit for work, and whose precarious health has been further jeopardised and damaged by very difficult engagement with the benefit system. Those left without entitlement are increasingly falling back on financial support from their unpaid family carers, who themselves are often in very tight financial circumstances. These are families who are finding themselves having to rely on emergency support.

The other emergency support in our social protection system, which I debated with the Minister a week ago, is the social fund. As I am sure Members are aware, the social fund currently provides crisis loans and community care grants; it is very much the last safety net of the social protection system. It will be abolished next year, with responsibility for its functions being devolved to Scotland. However, it is important to acknowledge that the Department for Work and Pensions has been managing back the social fund to its 2005-06 level, despite the increasing demands on it, and the money being devolved next year will represent a cut of about 50% on the 2009-10 level.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Debate between Gregg McClymont and Eilidh Whiteford

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont]

That bears precisely on the point. We are talking about real women and we must give due credence to their fears and anxieties, especially about due notice.

On fair notice, the fact remains that under the Government’s amended plans some women will have only five years to prepare. The shock of having to adjust at such short notice to a rise in the pension age of between 12 and 18 months cannot be overestimated—this reflects the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). These women feel genuine anxiety. The 500,000 women in question made decisions based on what they thought was a contract with the Government that they had paid into the system for a certain amount of time and would get their state pension at a certain age. The Government have moved the goalposts dramatically for these women; there is no getting away from that and it is another way in which the Government are breaking the consensus we appeared to have in 2010.

The Government are going down a dangerous path with this Bill, which sets a precedent by which the principle of reasonable notice of changes in citizens’ state pension age is dramatically reduced. The precedent is important because as longevity rises and as the Minister already suggested, there will inevitably be further uplifts in the state pension age. The principle of reasonable notice is broken by this Bill.

The independent Pensions Policy Institute was very clear in its evidence to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions on that point. The 1995 Act gave women 15 years’ notice and although the Pensions Policy Institute understood that longevity is rising and that it is necessary to make changes more quickly, it still maintained that 10 years needed to be the minimum notice that any woman was given.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I share his concern that the principle that the goalposts can be shifted with very short notice is serious. Does he agree that the problem with the longevity argument is that there are huge disparities in longevity according to people’s occupations as well as geographically? I am sure that affects his constituency, as it does mine.

[Gregg McClymont]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. That is an issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) often raises: averages can hide great disparities in social class as well as gender. That is a very important issue and I am sure the Minister is well aware of it.

The principle of reasonable notice is broken by the Bill. The Government’s concessions do not meet the fair and proper notice test, which is a principle of crucial importance. The second test we set for the Government was the proportionality test. They are unfairly and disproportionately singling out women aged 57 and 58 for harsher treatment. I do not suggest that they have singled them out deliberately—of course not—but I do say that they are not doing enough to compensate those women who have lost out in a birth date lottery that is not of their making. These women cannot, on the whole, afford the burden that the Government are placing on them, and they have certainly done nothing to deserve it. The Government should not make those women carry the heaviest burden of rising longevity—that is unfair and unjust. Some 500,000 women will still have to wait between a year and 18 months longer than they would have to reach state pension age. As I have previously stated, 330,000 women—one third of a million—will have to wait exactly 18 months longer, with the psychological and financial burdens that imposes.