Housing Benefit (Scotland)

Debate between Gregg McClymont and Margaret Curran

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point. There clearly is, broadly speaking, a real pressure on HMOs. That is one area in which policies, as I am sure the Minister will agree, can have interactions and unintended consequences that lead to deleterious outcomes for vulnerable individuals.

I was saying that there are parents who are working-age social tenants who will fall foul of the limit on payments for working-age tenants who are deemed to be under-occupying. However, we know that no social landlord deliberately puts people into properties that are too large for them. The Government believe that a negative financial incentive will lead social landlords to manage their properties more efficiently. My concern is that that outcome is not guaranteed. It seems likely that that choice could harm existing tenants whose circumstances have changed: the bereaved, the divorced or those whose children have left home.

A similar negative financial incentive is being introduced for the long-term unemployed to move home to seek work. The Government will penalise the unemployed by cutting their housing benefit entitlement by 10% once they have been unemployed for a year. That cut will apply even to those who are actively seeking work. It could affect almost 300 jobseeker’s allowance claimants in my constituency alone, and I am sure that it will affect many more in some of my hon. Friends’ constituencies.

The problem—again, I am sure that the Minister will agree—is that it is not easy at the moment to find work anywhere in the country, and Scotland has a particular problem. It is a harsh reality that at the end of last year there were four people chasing every job vacancy in Scotland, and there are few signs, so far at least, of that ratio improving.

My local YMCA, which I have spoken with recently, deals every week with cases of young people who are out of work and out of a home. Those are the most vulnerable young people.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

On the issue of young people leaving home and perhaps not having a home, I appreciate that my hon. Friend is not from the same city as I am, but is he aware of a report by Glasgow city council, which has assessed the impact of the housing benefit reforms and calculated that there could be a loss of £8.5 million to homelessness services? That would have an impact not only on homeless people themselves, but on the regeneration of the city of Glasgow, which we have done much work to improve. Does my hon. Friend agree that whatever the Government do to tackle housing benefit, that should not exacerbate the problem of homelessness, which we have made great strides to deal with?

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She raises a very good point about Glasgow in particular, although I should say that I do consider myself a Glaswegian. Cumbernauld is not very far away. However, although I may consider myself a Glaswegian, Glaswegians may have a different view.

Every week, my local YMCA deals with young people who are out of a home and out of a job. Those are the most vulnerable young people. Many are unable even to provide the right documentation to make an initial claim for housing benefit within the narrow window open to them. Those are often young people with psychological and dependency problems, coming from difficult family backgrounds. Things that we find easy are sometimes difficult for people in a vulnerable situation.

The YMCA and other local charities tell me that the cut to housing benefits for JSA claimants will leave the young unemployed at greater risk of falling into rent arrears if they do find a place to live. I know that Ministers say that they want to encourage the unemployed to move to different areas to find work, but the Government underestimate perhaps the social, cultural and psychological challenges that are sometimes involved in that process.

Postal Services (Scotland)

Debate between Gregg McClymont and Margaret Curran

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point.

There is very little in statute and a limited number of criteria in the licence that Royal Mail is obliged to fulfil in terms of post office outlet numbers. That did not matter in the past because outside the formal rules the Government, as owner, could and did order Post Office Ltd to maintain the current number of post offices. However, it will matter in future. The statutory or licence conditions, if any, imposed on Royal Mail will determine the future of up to 4,000 of the existing 11,500 post offices.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. As has been evident so far, post offices are highly valued by the British public. Does he agree that instead of post offices facing a cuts strategy it would be much better if they were facing a growth strategy? Surely as part of that, the Government could, for example, insist that Royal Bank of Scotland, a state-owned bank, signed up to the post office universal banking counter service. In fact, in these days, we do have opportunities to grow post offices. What is his view on that?

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will want to address a future strategy for growing the Post Office, and not letting it fall into decline.

I said that 4,000 post offices in the UK are at risk. Individuals with industry experience suggest that between 2,500 and 4,000 post offices would be at risk if the existing licence criteria remain unchanged. Scotland is likely to be at greater risk given its disproportionately large number of rural post offices. That is why I say that maintaining the current level of public service means not only retaining existing conditions for Royal Mail’s licence, but adding new criteria. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary clarified which obligations will be maintained, and to which body they will apply, if Royal Mail is to be privatised.

I also hope that the Under-Secretary will agree that the scope of the universal service obligation must be a decision for Parliament, and not delegated to the regulator or to an individual Minister, even one as capable as the Under-Secretary. I say that as a matter of both pragmatism and principle: pragmatism because a Minister or the regulator would be subject to enormous pressure from the privatised entity to reduce the required service; principle because, if there is a will to amend the universal service obligation, it must be done transparently and publicly by Parliament. My constituents and those of my hon. Friends care deeply about the service that Royal Mail and the Post Office provide. They demand no less.

Moving from the universal service obligation to the future of the inter-business agreement, what happens if the current exclusive agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd is ended? There is a danger that the Post Office will be undercut unfairly by competitors. For example, a supermarket chain could say to Royal Mail, “We can provide post offices more cheaply than Post Office Ltd. We will include no loss-making outlets.” To avoid such an outcome, there needs to be a level playing field. Fair competition would depend on a strictly written set of licence criteria. Any business that wished to compete for supplying post offices to Royal Mail must fulfil exactly the same objective licence criteria on a national basis as Post Office Ltd currently does. The contract for providing post offices must be set on just such an aggregated basis, otherwise bidders will cherry-pick the profitable post office locations.

The Government have given a welcome guarantee that Post Office Ltd will remain in public ownership when Royal Mail Group is broken up, but, without a guaranteed revenue stream from Royal Mail, many branches will be at risk from public spending cuts. I fear that some of the Under-Secretary’s colleagues perceive privatisation simply as a way to generate a commercial incentive for reducing the demand for post offices, to which the Government will then acquiesce. Can the Under-Secretary confirm whether the public subsidy to Post Office Ltd will be maintained? I am sure that we would all like an answer to that question.

I urge the Under-Secretary to adopt measures that protect current postal services to the public. For deliveries, that means maintaining the current number. For post offices, the Government have two choices. They could adopt an exclusive supply arrangement between a privatised Royal Mail and a publicly owned Post Office, or they could set the universal service obligation criteria at a level that provides for maintaining the current number of post offices. Long-term protection of Scotland’s postal services means giving Parliament the power to agree the level of service and any subsequent changes to it.