Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Ian Murray Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has duly given notice to the House of the arguments he will make tomorrow.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and indeed to the First Minister and the Finance Secretary in Scotland, on reaching this agreement? It shows us that when two people want to tango, they certainly can dance. Will the Secretary of State indulge the House by letting us know whether we will see some of the documentation before the statement tomorrow? This is a hugely complex agreement with significant figures, and I wonder whether it will be possible to get advance sight of the fiscal framework well ahead of tomorrow’s statement.
David Mundell
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am able to confirm that the documentation will be available for scrutiny. On the timing of my statement, I cannot commit to exactly when it will be.
Scotland Bill
Ian Murray Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 128, page 21, line 39, leave out from “of” to the end of line 7 on page 22 and insert
“a disabled person or person with a physical or mental impairment or health condition in respect of effects or needs arising from that disability, impairment or health condition.”
The current definition of ‘disability benefit’ used in the Bill is restrictive and could place unnecessary limits on the kind of replacement benefit the Scottish Government has the power to introduce. It may not, for example, allow the Scottish Government to introduce a benefit to assist people with very low level disabilities or those for whom the effect of their disability is largely financial.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 112, page 22, leave out lines 6 and 7.
Removes the word “short-term” in the clause devolving disability benefit. It is not clear what “short-term” means in this context, how it will be defined or whom it may exclude from receiving the benefit.
Amendment 48, page 22, line 45, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
Clause 19 stand part.
Amendment 115, in clause 20, page 23, line 27, after “financial”, insert “or other”.
This amendment would enable the provision of assistance, in relation to benefits for maternity, funeral and heating expenses, in a form other than cash.
Amendment 49, page 23, line 33, leave out “8” and insert “9”.
Amendment 50, page 23, line 34, leave out “8” and insert “9”.
Clause 20 stand part.
Amendment 12, in clause 21, page 24, leave out lines 9 and 10.
Clause 21 stand part.
Amendment 129, in clause 22, page 24, line 27, leave out from “who” to “appears” in line 32.
The current Exception 6 would extend the power to provide discretionary housing payments only to those already in receipt of housing benefit. Those who lose entitlement to any housing benefit as a result of the under-occupancy charge are precluded from accessing discretionary housing payments. The amendment seeks to allow the Scottish Parliament to mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax.
Amendment 116, page 24, leave out lines 36 to 48.
This amendment would remove some of the restrictions, including those relating to sanctions, in relation to discretionary housing payments.
Amendment 13, page 24, leave out lines 36 and 37.
Amendment 132, page 25, leave out lines 1 to 8.
The exception in the Bill could be problematic where claimants have had their housing benefit wrongly suspended. The amendment would allow the Scottish Parliament to provide discretionary housing payments in cases which might be regarded as arising from non-payability of a reserved benefit.
Clause 22 stand part.
Amendment 8, in clause 23, page 25, line 28, leave out “short-term”.
Amendment 117, page 25, leave out lines 30 to 37.
This amendment would broaden when discretionary housing payments can be made by removing some restrictions including those relating to sanctions.
Amendment 111, page 25, line 39, leave out “occasional”.
Amendment 131, page 25, line 45, at end add “or
(b) who are part of a family facing exceptional pressure.”
Clause 23 stand part
New clause 31—New benefits—
“In Section F1 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, in the Exceptions, after exception 8 (see section 23 above) insert—
“Exception 9
A benefit not in existence at the relevant date provided entitlement to or the purpose of the benefit is different from entitlement to or the purpose of any benefit that is—
(a) in existence at the relevant date,
(b) payable by or on behalf of a Minister of the Crown, and
(c) otherwise a reserved benefit.
For the purpose of this exception—
“the relevant date” means the date of introduction into Parliament of the Bill that becomes the Scotland Act 2015;
“reserved benefit” means a benefit which is to any extent a reserved matter.”
This New Clause broadens the circumstances under which the Scottish Parliament can create new benefits, as recommended by the Smith Commission.
Ian Murray
This afternoon, we are competing with the BBC’s coverage of Wimbledon; I hope we do not damage its ratings as Andy Murray kicks off his tournament. Of course, everyone in the House wishes Andy Murray well—not just for today’s match, but for the rest of the tournament. We apologise in advance if nobody watches his tennis match because their eyes are focused on this Chamber.
It is a privilege to speak on the Bill’s welfare provisions, to move amendment 128 and to speak to the other amendments as well as the very important new clause 31, which stands in my name and those of other hon. Members. I hope that Scottish National party Members—I had called them a braying mob, but there are slightly fewer of them this afternoon than last night—will not implode when I start by complimenting them: we will support their amendments 115 and 131, to which I have also added my name.
This area of the Bill devolves to the Scottish Parliament new and substantial powers over welfare, transferring to it £2.5 billion-worth of welfare responsibility. This is a real opportunity for Scotland; today we could pass amendments that fundamentally transform the Scottish Parliament’s relationship with the welfare system. It would then be up to the Scottish Government of the day to design the system that they want, and that the Scottish people have voted for, and find the resources to pay for it.
As much as the SNP has been desperate to be disappointed by the Bill, its approach to the welfare section has been broadly similar to Labour’s. I think that the only major difference arises from the SNP amendments to devolve national insurance. As I said yesterday—perhaps this was lost in the melee of the debate—that is a perfectly legitimate amendment for a party that believes in independence, but we disagree with that fundamental principle. As the party of devolution, we believe in a strong Scottish Parliament within the UK. We passionately believe that it is in the best interests of all Scots and the rest of the United Kingdom that there should be a pooling and sharing of resources, redistributing wealth from the haves to the have-nots.
The Conservatives believe in the redistribution of wealth from the have-nots to the haves. Since 2010, the House has seen a sustained attack on the most vulnerable. It was not the poorest and most vulnerable who caused the worldwide recession, but the reckless gambling on the financial markets. That led to a Government income crisis, which led to a Government obsessed with austerity, and that has choked off demand in the economy, hitting the poorest hardest right across the United Kingdom.
There are many examples, but the most pernicious, unfair and unequal of those welfare changes must be the bedroom tax. It has hit the most vulnerable very hard for the sake of very few savings on the welfare budget. A further £12 billon of unfunded welfare cuts were announced at the general election, with no detail whatever about where they would fall.
The Government’s problem is that they are failing to deal with the welfare system’s underlying problems. For example, the lack of affordable and social housing is increasing the housing benefit bill as many are forced into the much more expensive private rented sector. I see that happening every single day in my constituency.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
There are reports in the press that Labour and the SNP are proposing to introduce higher welfare payments in Scotland and higher welfare bills, which the Bill would allow them to do. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that both parties should spell out which taxes the Scottish people would have to pay to fund those commitments?
Ian Murray
We have a number of proposals relating to the Bill, including devolving housing benefit, which we will discuss this afternoon. We think that that money should be reinvested, wherever possible, in the building of social and affordable housing, because that would ultimately bring down the housing benefit bill. The hon. Gentleman tends to forget that if we invest to deal with the fundamental underlying problems in the system, we can bring the benefit bill down.
Getting people into work, introducing higher pay and building social housing to get people out of the more expensive private rented sector would all make a huge difference to the benefit bill. More money would then be available to reinvest in the system. Our double devolution proposals to get the Work programme, the Work Choice programme and Access to Work into the hands of the local authorities, which are in the best position to deliver them, would allow us to reinvest into the system. The Conservatives’ response of simply cutting the welfare bill rather than dealing with the fundamental underlying problems is the reason why the bill has been going up despite all the changes that the Government made during the last Parliament.
Let me make it clear that Labour is the only true guardian of the UK welfare system, supporting pensioners and the most vulnerable against Conservative cuts that will hit working people the hardest and against an SNP group determined to break up the system without having any idea of the consequences. That is why the Bill is so important. According to the House of Commons Library, if the Bill were passed in its present form, the Scottish Parliament would be responsible for 62% of all public expenditure. If the new clause proposing the devolution of housing benefit were passed, that figure would rise to 65%, but that is within the integrity of the UK welfare system.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man, and I do not want him to get too carried away with his narrative of how beastly the Conservatives have been to the poorest people. In my constituency, no new social housing was built during the 13 years during which we had a Labour MP. Now, 100 new social houses have been started. His narrative is precisely the one that his party tried, and failed, to get across during the general election. Does he not agree that it is time to look at welfare in a completely different light?
Ian Murray
That might be the experience in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency surgeries on a Friday and Saturday, but it is not the reality for my constituents. Many disabled people, and all the disability and voluntary sector organisations that have contributed to these parts of the Bill, have said something completely contrary to what he has just said. That might be the experience in his own backyard, but it is certainly not what I see in my constituency. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Child Poverty Action Group, Shelter Scotland, Enable and many other disability charities have all said that the situation is completely contrary to the one he is describing. I do not think that having the lowest level of house building since the 1920s is anything to be proud of. We should be doing something about that, across the House.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman’s preamble was slightly depressing, because it failed to wake up to a fact that I thought Labour Front Benchers had woken up to—namely, that all his party’s intentions and warm words about welfare would come to nothing if they were not underpinned by a strong economy.
Ian Murray
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my preamble, as he puts it, because I was talking about the underlying problems in the welfare system. They include: a lack of affordable social housing, which pushes people into the more expensive private rented sector, which pushes up the housing benefit bill; a lack of higher pay, which pushes up the benefit bill; and a lack of skills and opportunities to progress in the workplace and increase productivity, which also pushes up the welfare bill. Indeed, in Business, Innovation and Skills questions this morning, the Business Secretary said that the UK had a problem with productivity and that it had to be resolved. If we could resolve those three underlying problems in the welfare system, we might be in with a fighting chance of making life better for people in this country and of bringing the welfare bill down.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend suggesting that, although the baseline will always be the UK welfare system, lifting some of the restrictions that the Bill would place on the Scottish Parliament would allow it to build on the provisions?
Ian Murray
I shall come on to that. Indeed, new clause 31, which SNP Members have signed, too, incidentally, would essentially give the Scottish Parliament full power to introduce new benefits in all devolved areas and to top up any benefits in reserved areas. Anybody who wished to put together a manifesto for a Scottish parliamentary election would have to determine what they would do with the welfare system and would consequently have to pay for that, but the important principle is that the UK welfare state would remain integral and the Scottish Parliament, as an autonomous and powerful Parliament, would be able to make its own decisions to reflect the interests of the Scottish people.
The exact amount of money that is spent and who spends it are not the key concerns of the Bill, which is about ensuring that powers are exercised where they most benefit the people of Scotland. The Labour party was the architect of the welfare state—the system of social insurance that covers every citizen, regardless of income, from the cradle to the grave and that is perhaps one of our greatest achievements and the purest expression of our common values and shared purpose. As the architect of the modern welfare state, the Labour party will do everything it can to ensure that it serves the needs of people not just across the UK but, crucially in terms of this Bill, in Scotland. That is why we have sought to be the driving force in this section of the Bill, tabling a total of 21 amendments and new clauses, more than any other party, to ensure that the Smith agreement is not only delivered consistently in spirit and in substance but that the Bill goes much further in welfare provisions.
Each and every one of the amendments has a purpose: to improve the lives of families in Scotland while maintaining the fundamental principles of the underpinning of the UK welfare state. May I take the opportunity to thank all the charities and voluntary sector organisations from across Scotland who have assisted me in this task? They do valuable work day to day with those who are most in need, and we should thank them every single day for what they achieve. Without them, society would not operate in Scotland and across the UK. To put it simply, we should all thank them.
I am glad that the SNP has seen fit to support a number of the amendments. We will work closely together to ensure that we can deliver them. In the same spirit of inter-party co-operation and consensus, I have signed a number of the SNP’s amendments that attempt to improve the Bill. Although this is a fairly technical exercise and welfare is hugely complicated, I want to make it clear that fundamentally our amendments will ensure, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), that the Scottish Parliament has the unrestricted power to create any new benefits in areas that are devolved, in addition to the guarantees of the UK benefits and pension system, as well as the power to top up any benefits that remain reserved in this Parliament. That wide-ranging provision effectively gives the Scottish Parliament the power to design its own welfare system in its entirety. However, unlike others, we are determined to ensure that the welfare state remains an integrated and UK-wide system of social security to allow for the continued pooling and sharing of risks and of resources.
We will also actively pursue our policy of double devolution by devolving as many powers as possible to local communities so that they can be tailored to local needs and circumstance, starting with the Work programme, Work Choice and Access to Work, which we will debate later. Subsidiarity should be at the heart of the Scottish Parliament to ensure that the public are engaged and that there is full community spirit in designing the system that is best for community needs.
Before I speak about Labour’s specific amendments, I want to place on record my disappointment at the comments made by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) during yesterday’s debate. He described the proposals in the Smith agreement as “miserable”, and I think that that is quite wrong in the context of this Bill. We should be using this opportunity to improve on the provisions in front of us and to make the system better in Scotland. The Secretary of State has consistently said that he will consider sensible amendments to improve the Bill, both in substance and in spirit, and I hope that he will see many of our amendments on welfare as worth while, tabled in the spirit of co-operation and trying to make the Bill better rather than trying to make political points.
Clauses 19 to 23 concern the devolution to the Scottish Parliament of a number of welfare benefits, including power over disability benefits, industrial injuries allowance and carer’s allowance, the power to introduce top-up payments for people receiving reserve benefits, control over discretionary housing payments and the power to introduce new discretionary payments to help alleviate short-term need. The powers in the clauses are extensive, but there are a number of areas in which I believe they fall short, particularly as regards limiting the scope of the Scottish Parliament to make discretionary payments and create new benefits.
Paragraph 51 of the Smith commission’s report states that the Scottish Parliament
“will have complete autonomy in determining the structure and value of the”
devolved
“benefits…or any new benefits or services which might replace them.”
As I have said, we are committed, wherever possible, to abide by the spirit as well as the letter of the Smith commission’s recommendations. We believe that the term “discretionary”, as applied in this context, should not necessarily refer to the strict definition of the recipient of a payment or the duration or frequency with which they receive that payment. As Professor Paul Spicker stated in evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee:
“A payment is discretionary, not because it is short term or individual, but because it is in the power of the delegated authority to determine whether or not the payment will be made.”
However, the Bill as it stands adheres to a more restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a discretionary payment and includes a number of definitions of who can receive benefits and for how long and how often they can receive them, which would limit the autonomy of the Scottish Parliament in a way that, in my opinion, Smith did not intend.
Our amendments seek to ensure that the Scottish Parliament will not face unnecessary restrictions in its provision of discretionary payments to carers, those with disabilities or any other applicant, both in terms of who they are paid to and for how long and how often they are paid.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as being an unnecessary restriction in the legislation, the definition is also likely to give rise to a dispute about the ambit of the Bill? A wider definition that would embrace more people would be much simpler to administer.
Ian Murray
I agree, and we should be removing as much ambiguity as possible from the Bill. If the Scottish Parliament wanted to introduce a new benefit or a top-up benefit in one of these categories, the definition should be as wide as possible to enable it to do so. We do not want to end up with a dispute between two Governments or between recipients and the deliverer of the benefits or services about the definition in the Act. It would be good to get some clarity about what is meant by clauses 19 to 23.
As an example, I will consider disability benefit. As Inclusion Scotland has argued, the definition of disability benefits in clause 19 might “restrict the autonomy” of the Scottish Parliament in constructing a new disability benefits
“system based on empowering disabled people to lead active and productive lives and promoting the human rights of disabled people and independent living.”
We have therefore tabled amendment 128, which offers an alternative, broader and more flexible definition of disability benefit that would, among other things, allow the Scottish Parliament to introduce a benefit to assist people with low-level disabilities or those for whom the effect of their disability is largely financial.
Likewise, the definition of what constitutes a “relevant carer” is also, we believe, too prescriptive. As Enable Scotland observes, it
“prescribes to whom carers benefits would be payable, stipulating that the recipient would be over 16, not in full time education and not gainfully employed; and requiring that the cared-for person is in receipt of disability benefit.”
The Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee’s report of May 2015 on the Smith commission proposals and the UK Government’s response concluded:
“The Committee is concerned that the current definition of carer in the draft clauses appears overly restrictive and could limit the policy discretion of future Scottish administrations in this area. The Committee recommends that the clause should be re-drafted to ensure that the future Scottish administrations are able to define what constitutes a carer.”
I agree with both Enable Scotland and the Scottish Parliament Committee that the clauses as drafted unnecessarily limit the scope of the Scottish Parliament’s powers and might limit their ability in future to create new benefits. We have therefore tabled amendment 48, which seeks to remove the definition from the Bill to allow the Scottish Parliament to arrive at its own definition. I am pleased that the SNP has supported the amendment and want to reciprocate by supporting amendment 115, which provides for the provision of non-financial assistance as regards benefits for maternity, funeral and heating expenses, and amendment 121, which inserts the additional qualifying criteria for provision of discretionary payments and assistance for being part of a family facing exceptional financial pressure.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the overall approach being taken in the UK now is of concentrating on tackling poverty by giving people skills, pushing the work obligation and removing barriers to employment, and that it is important that the welfare system should dovetail with that? There are of course provisions in this Bill to that effect. Does he agree that it would be wrong if Scotland were to take a different approach and go back to a dependency culture?
Ian Murray
It is not the purpose of our amendments to create some kind of dependency culture. Indeed, in my last sentence as the hon. and learned Gentleman was seeking to intervene I said that we accept the SNP’s amendment 121 that addresses payments and discretionary payments for families facing exceptional pressure, and the amendments on carers and disabled qualifications widen the definitions, so it becomes not just about supporting people with a financial need, but about work assistance and getting people back into work.
The issues around the Work programme, the Work Choice programme and Access to Work schemes are the third part of this Bill. We will come on to them later and examine some of the points, because the Government have tended to forget that this process is not just about forcing people off welfare; it is also about giving them the opportunity to get back into work and supporting them through that process. We want to support more people in that way, particularly disabled people and those who find it particularly difficult to access the labour market, and we should make sure the legislation is flexible enough to do that.
Sir Oliver Heald
One of the key aims of the UK Government is to ensure work always pays better than being on benefits. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a pity if any of these reforms altered that balance for Scotland?
Ian Murray
I do agree, but I find it a little ironic that the hon. and learned Gentleman says from the Conservative Government Benches that everything should be designed to encourage people into work, when in fact the whole design of the tax credit system was to encourage people into work and the first aim of the Conservative Government seems to be to cut tax credits which would make it less attractive for people to be in work. There is a fine balance to be struck between supporting people into the workplace and in the workplace and making sure work always pays. I think all Members would agree with that principle, but cutting tax credits is not the way to make sure work pays, because it will force people into choosing whether they are better-off out of work or in work. We must strive for much higher pay in order to reduce the welfare bill in tax credits, rather than cutting tax credits; that would be coming at it from the wrong angle.
I was talking about amendments 121 and 115. These are straightforward and common-sense amendments that grant greater autonomy to the Scottish Parliament in the way it provides support to the vulnerable and those at risk in Scotland. We have tabled a number of other amendments to this section of the Bill, including amendment 112 to clause 19 which removes the phrase “short-term” in regard to disability benefits, and amendment 111, which removes the reference to “occasional” financial assistance in clause 23.
Meanwhile, our amendments 12 and 13 to clauses 21 and clause 22 respectively would allow the provision of discretionary financial assistance in a reserved benefit. I do not believe any of these amendments are particularly controversial. Indeed they have garnered a broad cross-section of support from charities, including Enable Scotland, Inclusion Scotland, Learning Disability Alliance Scotland and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations.
Andrew Gwynne
These amendments might not be controversial but does my hon. Friend agree that they send the important signal that a strong devolved Scottish Parliament should be able to determine the benefits for the Scottish people?
Ian Murray
That is right, because the commitment that was given to the Scottish people after the no vote at the referendum last September was that we would create one of the strongest devolved Parliaments in the world. In order to be able to do that, we have to give the necessary tools to the Scottish Parliament to determine not only its own direction in welfare and a host of other policy areas, but the finances it raises to pay for that. Accountability comes with that kind of financial responsibility and that is what, according to Smith, the Scottish Parliament was missing before the Scotland Act 2012 and the Scotland Bill before us today.
The Scottish Parliament needs to be given the ability to make its own decisions. Using terms such as “short-term”, “discretionary” and “on a short-term basis” do not give that flexibility. If someone were putting forward a new system of welfare in Scotland, it would be up to the electorate to decide whether they wanted that and wanted to pay for it.
I now come to arguably the most important amendment to this part of the Bill, new clause 31, which broadens the circumstances under which the Scottish Parliament can create new benefits, and brings it more into line with what I believe the Smith agreement intended. It has been co-signed by SNP Members and for that I am very grateful. Due to its significance we should be able to use it to transform this part of the Bill.
New clause 31 creates a new exception 9 in section F1 in part 2 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998—I know all Members will have read that and will know exactly what I am referring to—which allows for the creation of any benefit not currently in existence, payable by or on behalf of a UK Minister of the Crown, or otherwise a reserved benefit. In essence, this would allow the Scottish Parliament to create any new benefit which is not in existence on the date on which this Act is passed. This, I believe, goes significantly further than what is currently in the Bill.
I will be grateful if the Minister responds specifically on why this, in his view, would not be desirable or practicable, because it ensures that the power to create new benefits in Scotland rests with the Scottish Parliament and therefore the Scottish people, and that it has the flexibility and autonomy to exercise this power free from unnecessary restraint, in keeping with the spirit and substance of the Smith agreement. Of course, there will have to be joint working between the Governments to ensure that it is deliverable, and that brings me to an important common theme that has run through these Committee debates so far: the need for both Governments to work much closer together in partnership for the benefit of Scotland. We cannot emphasise that enough. We must have a much more solid partnership working and relationship to make these provisions work.
Let me be absolutely clear on this point so that there is no ambiguity: I believe in the fundamental principle that the final say on the creation of new benefits, the type of benefit created, whom it is paid to, and how long and how often it is paid, should reside with the Scottish Parliament. That is my view, and that is the view of the Labour party across the UK.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
On the exchange my hon. Friend had with the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) on the impact of the Government policy of cutting tax credits, which will hit people who are in work more than people who are simply on benefits, will these amendments, many of which have the support of the SNP, give any extra protection to the people in Scotland against the impact of cutting tax credits that will happen in England, or not?
Ian Murray
New clause 31 allows the Scottish Parliament to top up any reserved benefit in the UK and create any benefit in devolved areas, so there would be an ability to create a system that mitigates the reduction in tax credits. As I understand it, tax credits are not a benefit in terms of the system; they are done through the income tax system, so topping up tax credits would be outwith the scope of this arrangement, but there is no reason why under new clause 31 an additional benefit could not be put in place for people who are in work and have children, for example.
I am very pleased that we have managed to get cross-party support for new clause 31 and if the Government agree it, it would give the Scottish Parliament full autonomy on the welfare state, which I think is what the Scottish people and Scottish Parliament want. If the Government are going to support any amendment, I urge them to make it new clause 31, although I also recommend our other amendments.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
This is an interesting debate and a wide range of points have been made on welfare and benefits in general. I will try to stick to the two detailed amendments I have tabled, but I cannot resist making the general point that I see this as Scotland pioneering many of the things that should be commonplace throughout the Union. I hope that, if we are successful in proposing some of these amendments and progressive ideas, they will be available to everybody else in the Union.
This is the federal Parliament; this is the Parliament of all the four nations. The success of one nation within that Union should lead to the success of all. Those who wish to do this in Wales, Northern Ireland or parts of England should have that opportunity.
I hope we can tie this to the local government and devolution Bill currently in the other place. Its proposals will enable large parts of England—many of the constituent parts are actually larger than Scotland by combined authorities—through effective devolution from the massive, over-centralised state in Whitehall, or through regionally banding together to create their own units, to deploy some of the things that many found commonplace before 2010. I well remember the work programme put forward by my local city council. It was immensely successful but was then abolished by the incoming Government in 2010. I hope very much that places around the Union will be able to use these useful precedents of freedom and liberation at the lowest possible level—in this case at a national or even a sub-national level—to ensure the good welfare of people in their areas.
I have tabled amendments 129 and 132. Exception 6 in clause 22 requires those receiving discretionary housing payments to be also receiving housing benefit at the same time. Amendment 129 removes that prior requirement; it removes that restriction so that those people can receive discretionary housing payments without having first to claim housing benefit. What that does is quite simple: it allows people in the relevant place to make a judgment on this, rather than some “superbrain” in Whitehall. In this case, the Scottish Parliament would have the chance to work out its own manifesto commitments—Labour party manifesto commitments and Scottish National party manifesto commitments to scrap the bedroom tax. [Interruption.] Forgive me, but I think the important part of that sentence was “scrap the bedroom tax”, which we can probably agree on; I hope the SNP will agree with that.
I will not make this consensus fragile by referring to all those SNP Members who voted with the Conservatives last night. That would be to do something that has been pointed in my direction in the past, so I do not want to raise that sensitive issue. We are dealing with an issue—the bedroom tax—where people of good will throughout the Committee can rattle off examples in their own constituencies about how it has been an appalling thing visited on many of our constituents, with most of them being the most vulnerable and least able to look after themselves, and where some with chronic disability have been targeted. The phraseology we always hear—we heard it a little earlier—relates to the idea that people on benefits are scroungers. Never do we hear about the fact that most people on benefits are pensioners who have worked most of their lives to get their pension or are people who have suffered from the chronic nature of their disability and need help—in any civilised society, we would all expect to help each other. Anything, even the limited change I am proposing to mitigate the worst effects of the bedroom tax, will, I hope, be welcomed by all those parties.
Mr Allen
The whole sanction regime needs a proper and thorough review, and it should be based on evidence of the sort the hon. Gentleman brings, as I can, rather than on prejudice and electoral gain. Although it may, sadly, go down well in certain leafy suburbs, those of us who have relatives who are pensioners or people with a disability, and those of us who represent people who are suffering because of the bedroom tax, have a slightly different perspective. I am trying to share it with some Government Members, but, sadly, this is with a mixed degree of success.
On amendment 132, exception 6 uses the example of non-compliance, but if someone’s claim had been wrongly suspended—the point the hon. Gentleman makes and I fully support—they would be put in a worse position as they would also lose discretionary housing payments. If the rhetoric about trying to get people back into work and about making work pay is meant, making people suffer a double disbenefit flies in the face of trying to help individuals back into work. It is a catch-all and a broad brush, and it is insensitive.
One of the best ways to tackle those problems, which we all encounter in government, is to make government as close to people as is humanly possible. My suggestion in this case is that that should be within the province of the Scottish Parliament, but in other cases we may even be talking about a lower tier of government. I wish briefly to deal with the question of double devolution, which was raised from the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), but just to finish on amendment 132 let me say that it would remove the provisions and the possibility I have described altogether. In summary, it would give the Scottish Parliament the ability to pay the discretionary benefit when a person cannot be paid a reserved benefit such as housing benefit. That is relatively straightforward and I hope I have put it as succinctly as possible.
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important speech, and I just wanted to clarify something for him. The reason we have not signed his amendment is that we had an amendment to devolve the entirety of housing benefit, which would of course take into account all those discretionary housing benefit levels. That is why we have not supported his amendment; it is purely because we have the overarching devolution amendment.
Mr Allen
I totally understood that and I see why my hon. Friend has done what he has done. I hope we will get a broader consensus in the Committee as a result.
I wish to make one final point on this couple of detailed amendments, and it relates to double devolution. Again, I am not trying to tread on any sensitivities. I am an irregular visitor to Scotland, but when I go there, as I did over the weekend, I often hear people talk about local government in Scotland being centralised, not, for once, to Whitehall, but to Holyrood. I hope that my good friends in the Scottish National party will be clear when they speak in this debate that they reject a recentralisation of power from Whitehall to Holyrood. Such a recentralisation would fly in the face of proper devolution.
I know that the SNP’s long-term agenda is not devolution but separation of Scotland from the rest of the Union. Separation is the long-term goal of SNP Members. That time may never come, or it may come in some number of years. I do not know; none of us can predict. In the interim, I ask parties of all descriptions in Scotland to put themselves at the service of the Scottish people so that they can get the fullest possible benefit from the devolution proposals. Devolution should not merely transfer the ability to tell people what to do from Whitehall—which I resent—to a Scottish Parliament that has accumulated power. Once power has been fought for, granted from the centre and taken down to the lowest level possible, all of us who believe in devolution must avoid the temptation to look at people on the ground and say, “I wonder what we could have from them? I wonder how we can tell them what to do?”
There are some wonderful precedents in Scotland for the other nations of the Union. I hope that all my friends of different political complexions in Scotland will fight as strongly as they fought for their own Parliament to push as much power down to the local level as is humanly possible. I think that we all agree about the need to be sensitive and help people, but it must be done by people as intimately connected with them as possible. That will be another step of progress.
Priti Patel
I am talking about the definition of a disability benefit, which we want to ensure provides ample flexibility for the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a range of outcomes for people who would not otherwise meet the requirements.
Amendment 48 relates to carers’ benefits. As with disability benefits, our approach has been to describe the key features of the existing carer’s allowance, but clause 19 will not restrict the Scottish Parliament to following all the detailed features of that allowance. For example, it will not be restricted to making a benefit payment to only one carer in respect of each disabled person. Taken together with existing devolved powers in areas such as social care, the clause will ensure that the Scottish Parliament has powers to set out how support for carers is provided, including the rate at which it is paid and whether it is paid as a benefit or provided in some other way.
There is also a broad definition of a disabled person in respect of whom a carer’s benefit can be paid. Amendment 48 would extend the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence still further, allowing it to provide a carer’s benefit to children under 16, people in full-time education or those who are gainfully employed. I will take each category in turn and explain why we do not consider that there is a case for that expansion of competence.
It is a long-standing principle of the social security system that those under 16 are normally supported not by the benefits system but by guardians, local authorities or parents. With regard to those not gainfully employed, carer’s allowance is designed to recognise those whose opportunities to work are limited because of the time that they dedicate to caring duties. There needs to be a threshold so that we can judge whether a claimant is in employment. The reference to gainful employment provides that threshold.
Those in full-time education are normally supported not by the benefits system but by the education maintenance system of loans and grants. Clause 19 will allow the Scottish Parliament to decide on the details of who carers’ benefits are paid to, how much is paid and what the eligibility criteria should be. The parameters of the definition of “relevant carer” are appropriate and reflect long-standing principles about the purpose of carers’ benefits.
Ian Murray
The Minister has explained the restricted definition of carers, but if the Scottish Parliament has full power to set up a new devolved benefit on top of a reserved benefit, why should it not be up to the Scottish Parliament to decide on its own definition of carers? That should not affect the provisions in the Bill.
Priti Patel
As I have said, the clause will allow the Scottish Parliament to decide on the details of who carers’ benefits are paid to. I want to make progress now, because I need to come to many other points that have been made.
Priti Patel
For the record, let me say that we have other groups of amendments to discuss this afternoon. I will happily have that discussion and I will come on to some of those other points in later discussions. There is no excuse.
Perhaps I may continue. We believe that the Scottish Parliament can already create new benefits under either existing powers or those devolved by the Bill. The Smith commission was clear about which welfare powers were to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and the Bill delivers those powers in a way that allows that Parliament to replace the benefits and payments for which powers are being devolved.
On areas of devolved responsibility outside welfare, we believe that the Scottish Parliament has the powers to provide financial assistance to people in devolved areas—it currently does so in some areas already. We do not consider that the social security reservation prevents the Scottish Parliament from providing such financial assistance. The proposed new exception would give the Scottish Parliament competence to legislate to create new benefits in any area other than those where reserved powers existed on 28 May 2015—the date on which the Bill was introduced. That would flip the social security reservation on its head. As such, that would not provide a new power to create benefits in areas of devolved responsibility; rather, it would devolve further areas of responsibility to the Scottish Parliament, which is not what the Smith commission agreement called for.
Undermining the social security reservation in that way would simply limit the freedom of the UK Parliament when introducing new welfare benefits, or making changes to existing reserved benefits in the future. We will discuss many other clauses and groups of amendments this afternoon, and I will happily cover some of those points in those discussions. At this stage, however, I urge hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.
Ian Murray
I appreciate that the Minister has come to the Dispatch Box to respond to the amendments, but I am slightly disappointed that she has used the excuse of restricted time; we have another five hours left and only two more groups of amendments. As I said at the end of my initial contribution, if the Government are to accept any amendments at all it would be useful for them to accept new clause 31, as that would give the Scottish Parliament power to establish any new benefit in a devolved area and top up any benefit in the reserved area. That would give it a wide-ranging power to design a system of welfare in Scotland that fits the needs of the Scottish people, which is incredibly important. I will push new clause 31 to the vote later today, but in the meantime I will push amendments 128 and 48 to the vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Tommy Sheppard
I absolutely understand that. If we get a chance in the years ahead, while welfare remains the responsibility of the UK Parliament, to join the Labour party in voting to apply the measures that we will introduce in Scotland to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, I will be happy to take the opportunity to do so.
I turn to the Secretary of State’s veto, which has been mentioned. I know he will deny that it is a veto, but everyone else who has looked at the provisions thinks it is a veto, including most third sector organisations in Scotland. It will allow the Secretary of State to object to regulations that the Scottish Parliament might introduce to improve the welfare system in Scotland. How can it be right that a power is devolved yet not devolved, and that the Secretary of State will retain authority to govern such decisions? In an earlier stage of the debates on the Bill, one Conservative Member said that we should all trust each other and that life would be an awful lot better. Could the Secretary of State not find it in his heart to trust the Scottish Government to make regulations? After all, there are fairly closely defined parameters for those regulations, so why on earth burden everyone with the requirement that the Scottish Government have to seek the Secretary of State’s consent? It is absolutely ridiculous.
If there is one way in which Secretary of State could indicate that he is listening to Scotland, it is by saying, “Fair enough—if the Scottish Government take a decision, we will let them get on with it, because we have transferred authority. We do not have to keep looking over their shoulder and checking their homework.” I hope that he will take that on board.
The crux of the whole argument is political authority. We are now halfway through the fourth day of debates on the Bill, and the Government and the Secretary of State have yet to suggest that they will make any substantive change to it. The Minister for Employment suggested earlier that the clauses we were discussing were in line with the spirit and substance of the Smith agreement, but it is strange that everyone else disagrees, including the Scottish Parliament’s devolution committee, on which the Conservative party is represented. That all-party group said that the clauses as drafted did not represent the spirit or substance of the Smith agreement. Something has got to give, unless we are going to rename the Secretary of State the governor-general and accept that we will not have government with the consent of the people in Scotland. I hope that he will listen to the people and accept some amendments.
When I quizzed the Secretary of State yesterday, he leapt to his feet and said that he was listening, and that he was in fact in conversation with the Scottish Government. He cited conversations with my colleague the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney. That caused John Swinney to write to the Secretary of State to say that he considers that his name had almost been taken in vain. He states:
“you cited our ‘productive discussion’…There will have to be clear movement by the UK Government, otherwise it is becoming harder to justify that description.”
Today the Secretary of State has the opportunity to make some minor concessions to show that he is willing to listen to the people who were elected in Scotland—I am not talking just about the 56 SNP MPs; I think we can safely say that 58 out 59 MPs from Scotland do not want the Secretary of State to have a veto over powers that this Parliament might devolve to the Scottish Government. I hope that he will reflect on that and give some ground in his concluding remarks to show that he is listening.
Ian Murray
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), and he was right to point out that we need a welfare system that shows compassion to those who have fallen on hard times, whether through illness, disability, economic circumstances or old age. He told the story of a 62-year-old constituent who was affected by the bedroom tax, and I am sure that all Members can recall similar stories from their surgeries of the most vulnerable being hit the hardest by what is probably the most pernicious tax that any Government have ever bestowed on people. It is right that the Scottish Government have been able to mitigate the bedroom tax in Scotland, and this evening we will vote on new clause 31 that would give the Scottish Parliament the power to consider such matters. The hon. Gentleman is right to have given that description of the social security system. That is the fourth time we have agreed today and I hope we will continue in that spirit.
I will speak to amendments 5, 6, 7 and new clauses 28 and 53 in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Amendments 5, 6 and 7 are different from the SNP’s amendments 118 and 119, but if the SNP presses its amendments to the vote we will support it and withdraw our amendments. Clause 24 gives Scottish Ministers regulation-making powers on the housing costs element of universal credit for claimants who rent their homes. The Secretary of State would also retain regulation-making powers, meaning that both the Scottish and UK Governments would have powers in that area and be able to exercise them independently.
Clause 25 gives Scottish Ministers regulation-making powers in Scotland to provide for alternative payment arrangements for universal credit, including
“the person to whom, or the time when, universal credit is to be paid”.
That will allow universal credit payments to be split between household members, and for payments to be made more frequently than under the UK Government’s current monthly plan. Although I am sure that we all welcome the devolution of those powers, that part of the Bill has caused considerable controversy by affording UK Ministers what some have interpreted as a veto over the Scottish Government’s regulation-making powers. That relates to the requirement in clauses 24 and 25 that, before exercising their regulation-making powers, Scottish Ministers consult the Secretary of State on the practicability of implementing proposed changes to universal credit, and obtain his agreement on when those changes are to happen. It is worth examining whether that amounts to an effective veto.
The Deputy First Minister John Swinney—he has just been mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East—has detected in what he calls those “pretty innocuous requirements” a sinister intent on behalf of the UK Government to exercise “a blocking power” that would act to
“prevent the Scottish Government from doing something”.
What does the UK Government seek to do with these provisions? I do not believe that the current provision is intended as a veto, but it could be more clearly worded to remove any ambiguity.
As I said on Second Reading, the Government have an opportunity to clear up any ambiguity, and if they are intent on saying that there is no effective veto in the Bill, they should remove that ambiguity once and for all. Amendments 5, 6 and 7 seek to allay the concerns of the Deputy First Minister and the charitable organisations that have been mentioned, by clarifying that Scottish Ministers need only “consult” the Secretary of State about the timing and—crucially—the delivery mechanisms of any new regulations.
Andrew Gwynne
Is not another compelling reason for the effective devolution of housing benefit to the Scottish Parliament that housing policy is already devolved? It would allow the Scottish Government to have a fully integrated housing policy, using those resources much more smartly and, effectively, being able to abolish the bedroom tax.
Ian Murray
I have a touch of déjà vu, as that is twice my hon. Friend has intervened with the next sentence of my speech—[Interruption.] Yes, I should stop sharing it around. He is right, and that is exactly what we said in our submission to the Smith commission. Perhaps he has read it—if he has any trouble sleeping, I highly recommend it to him. We want to increase the powers of the Scottish Parliament in areas that are closely related to devolved services, especially if that allows us to address and eliminate anomalies in the administration and delivery of vital public services. Housing policy is one such anomaly.
Most aspects of housing policy, specifically those relating to social housing, are already devolved to Scotland, including—most recently—discretionary housing payments. Social housing and housing benefit are inextricably linked: it therefore does not make sense for a devolved legislature to have control over one and not the other. That view is shared by the Institute for Public Policy Research. Devolving housing benefit to Scotland would allow for a more holistic approach to housing policy in Scotland, affording the Scottish Parliament and, crucially, local authorities far greater autonomy to tailor delivery to suit local and regional needs and circumstances. It would also transfer to the Scottish Parliament significant new resources with which to deal with the ongoing crisis in social housing.
At present, demand for social housing in Scotland, as across much of the UK, is greatly outstripping supply. Indeed, Scotland is facing its biggest housing crisis since the second world war with nearly 180,000 people in Scotland on social housing waiting lists, including 23,000 in Edinburgh alone. Earlier this year, Audit Scotland estimated that Scotland will need more than 500,000 new homes in the next 25 years. Under this Government, we have the lowest number of houses being built since 1947, and our public housing stock is decreasing drastically. The number of new social homes being built each year is down by more than 20%. generation rent is overlooked by the Government: Those in Scotland’s growing private rented sector face rising rents and being forced to move house too often. An individual living in social rented housing has the same address for an average of only 2.6 years, and families make up nearly half the people who are moving around in less than that average.
In the past 10 years, the number of people living in the private rented sector has doubled to 368,000; the number of households in poverty in the private rented sector has also doubled in the past decade, to 120,000. In 2014, almost 1 million households, or 2 million individuals, were living in fuel poverty, an increase of almost 300,000 on the previous year. That all relates to policies and their impact on people living in inadequate private housing. We will continue to fight for a better deal for the private rented sector.
Shelter Scotland, the much-respected charity, identified the negative effect of homelessness and temporary housing on children’s education and health. It researched the impact, particularly on children and on families with children, of living in inadequate housing in the private rented sector, as well as of homelessness, the inability to get into social housing and being stuck in temporary housing for too long. I will pick out just one or two points.
The research states that homeless children are two or three times more likely to be absent from school than other children due to the disruption caused by moving into, and between, temporary accommodation. I see that in my own constituency, where the situation is drastic. My constituency must have one of the most acute social housing shortages in the country. Many families end up either stuck in temporary accommodation or moved around temporary accommodation regularly. Homeless children are three or four times more likely to have mental health problems—a fairly obvious conclusion because of such instability. Some 90% of respondents to a Shelter survey said that their children had suffered from living in temporary accommodation. The longer families live in temporary accommodation, the more likely they are to attribute to it their worsening health.
It is important that we should be able to deal with those issues, but there is no doubt that housing benefit and the ability to access housing benefit resources are inextricably linked with building more social homes and with the whole of social housing policy within the Scottish Parliament. Karen Campbell, the director of policy and operations at Homes for Scotland, stated:
“Scotland’s housing crisis affects all tenures, whether for social/private rent or sale. This is having a severe impact on the lives of Scots across the whole country, particularly young people and growing families. No other sector impacts such a wide range of policy issues yet the number of new homes being built has fallen to its lowest level in some 70 years, threatening Scotland’s social and economic well-being.”
From the results of the Shelter survey, we can see that the social wellbeing of many families, and particularly the children in those families, is a real issue.
Devolving housing benefit to Scotland would afford the Scottish Parliament substantial additional funds to address the shortfall. It would unlock up to £1.8 billion of resources, the largest spend on a single benefit in Scotland after the old age state pension. That could, over time, be invested in the provision of new housing stock in Scotland. I appreciate that that cannot happen overnight, because there would have to be some mechanism to allow the fund to be accessed—potentially through prudential borrowing, which local authorities could use to reduce housing benefit and build more houses. That would not only serve to alleviate the pressure on social housing, but create jobs and help to depress housing costs across the private rented sector. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation noted,
“investing in affordable supply will place downward pressure on rents and subsequently reduce the burden of housing costs upon the budgets of low income households living in the private rented sector in Scotland.”
That point is hugely important. The Government have tried to come down incredibly hard on the housing benefit bill, but it has doubled in the past decade or so—they have not been able to deal with the supply and demand issue. The number of my constituents who end up in the much more expensive private rented sector—almost double the rent of social or affordable housing—clearly pushes up the housing benefit bill. Before the Secretary of State, or the governor of Scotland, jumps to his feet and tells us that the housing benefit bill is going up because of worklessness, let me state the reality: nearly 70% of my constituents in receipt of housing benefit are actually in work. This is a huge issue not just in terms of social impact, but in getting the housing benefit bill down. We have to get people into much more affordable housing.
As an added and not insignificant bonus, devolving housing benefit would, as we have discussed, allow the Scottish Parliament to put an end to one of the cruellest and most iniquitous policies of recent years—the bedroom tax. We need to consider double devolution, a point made regularly in these debates, as the Scottish Parliament is very centralist. We need to devolve power down to the communities best able to use them. For example, housing benefit should be administered at the local authority level because each local authority has its own housing needs and demands—for example, in respect of key workers and specific demographics. I hope that these strong arguments will convince the Government and hon. Members to support our new clause 28.
The Bill could also be enhanced on the provision of childcare, which Labour’s new clause 53 would do by devolving the childcare element of universal credit to the Scottish Parliament. The childcare element is closely linked to the provision of employment support programmes, and devolving it would increase the capacity of the Scottish Parliament and local authorities to help parents obtain and remain in employment by assisting them with the rapidly escalating cost of childcare—the cost of childcare in Scotland has risen much higher than in the rest of the UK. It is one of the main obstacles to parents entering and remaining in the labour market. Devolving the childcare element would afford the Scottish Parliament a valuable new mechanism for removing that obstacle and allowing parents to enter the jobs market.
Dr McCormick, the Scotland adviser to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and a member of the Social Security Advisory Committee, stated in response to the Smith commission proposals that
“the costs of childcare in Scotland are high by international standards and rise much faster than inflation... Childcare is a clear example where both closer alignment with the Scottish Government’s childcare offer and stronger incentives to invest are needed. The Bill should empower the Scottish Government to vary childcare allowances via Universal Credit, on the same basis as housing allowances.”
New clause 53 would provide for the power to be devolved to the Scottish Government so that they can do precisely that, and I hope that the Government and hon. Members across the House see the value of supporting it.
I wish to turn briefly to other amendments, chiefly to new clauses 39, 40, 44 and 46, in the name of the SNP, and to new clause 55, in the name of the SNP’s favourite Conservative, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). As I said, there is no fundamental problem with the devolution of the entire social security system—or, indeed, of the entire income tax system or any of these other policies. They do, however, have one thing in common. New clause 55 would end the UK-wide welfare state, and we do not wish to see an end to it—that will not come as a surprise to the House. We completely reject anything that would end the UK-wide welfare state. In the context of keeping the UK-wide welfare state together, it would not be desirable to devolve to the Scottish Parliament powers that the Smith agreement stipulated should remain reserved—for example, around Jobcentre Plus, national insurance contributions and child benefit.
Andrew Gwynne
In the past, my hon. Friend has spoken passionately about the need to pool resources and risks across the whole UK. Does he share my concern that the effective ending of a UK-wide national insurance system would also end the pooling of those risks and responsibilities for a UK-wide welfare state?
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend must have brilliant eyesight. I am not sure whether it is the glasses, whether he is just insightful or whether he can read minds, but, believe it or not, I am about to come to that. Perhaps we are on the same wavelength.
I shall examine some of those issues now. I am a little confused, because I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) moved new clauses 39 and 40 on the devolution of national insurance contributions. [Interruption.] She might be moving them later. I know she spoke to them, but I am unaware that she moved them. For the record, we would oppose the devolution of national insurance contributions, for the very reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has just set out. The pooling of risks and resources is explicit in national insurance contributions. The UK national insurance system is the largest insurance scheme of all and secures benefits to all through the widest possible risk pool.
The SNP’s new clauses seek to devolve national insurance in a manner that betrays a basic lack of understanding about the highly integrated and interlocking nature of the social security system, and they would mean having to deal with a huge array of complex issues. Even if we went beyond the principle of the pooling and sharing of resources, there would have to be a separate Scottish national insurance fund to receive all future national insurance contributions from Scottish taxpayers; all existing contributory benefits accumulated up to the vested date would have to be honoured by the UK national insurance fund; and transfers from the Scottish to the UK national insurance fund would have to follow Scottish taxpayers moving elsewhere in the UK.
Some issues were mentioned by the hon. Member for Gainsborough in speaking to his new clause 3, which related to the first part of the Bill. In talking about full fiscal autonomy, he mentioned that there would have to be significant redress to the UK national insurance fund. He raised issues about survivors’ benefits and where the people affected were living. As well as the principle of not devolving national insurance, there is also the matter of how to deal with the complex issues that would be raised across the United Kingdom.
David Mundell
I will repeat what I said earlier: I have agreed a programme of work to be undertaken before Report, with a view to producing a Bill that reflects the Smith commission, the concerns of stakeholders and the views of the Scottish Parliament. I will reflect on the amendments and the case that has been made for them.
I am listening to what has been said about clause 25(3)(b), which is a sensible consultation requirement about timing, not policy. Good governance in Scotland will require that decisions taken by the Scottish Government about new powers can be implemented in a timeous way. That is what it is about—respect in a shared space and working together on welfare.
Ian Murray
Could the Secretary of State give a practical example of a policy that the Scottish Government may introduce whose delivery mechanism comes through the Department for Work and Pensions, so that we can be clear and trust that what he is saying is correct and that there is no veto?
David Mundell
I do not yet know what proposals the Scottish Government will make. I have made it clear that I would like to know what they will be, because we have heard significant criticisms of UK Government policy. That is, of course, legitimate in this Parliament and, indeed, the Scottish Parliament, but we need to know the detail. The joint ministerial group on welfare wants to understand where the Scottish Government want to go with specific programmes, so that we can help and facilitate the transitional arrangements and deliver what they want to do.
I want the Scottish Government to be held to account. I do not want the continuation of the current situation, whereby people stand up in Parliament and make grand statements for which they are not held accountable and without explaining where the money will come from or how the system will work in practice. A lot of us who live in Scotland know that what the Scottish Government say does not always—shock, horror—happen in reality. I want a system for which the Scottish Government will be held accountable and under which they will have welfare powers and will have to set out for the people of Scotland how much their policies will cost and where the money will come from.
I said in a previous debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) was the 57th SNP Member, and today he has proved that by tabling new clause 55, which is an even stronger proposal than what the SNP says is its policy. It is a fact that no Scottish MP has tabled an amendment to devolve UK pensions, and that speaks volumes. It tells us that even the supporters of independence accept that there are parts of welfare where it makes sense to share resources and risk with the rest of the UK. It is clear that pensions are safer and more affordable if we work with everyone else in the UK and that it would be wrong to devolve UK pensions.
MPs have to respect the referendum result, at which people in Scotland voted to remain part of a United Kingdom and hold on to the benefits of being part of it. Looking after the people of Scotland who are retired, unwell or out of work is now a shared space in which the UK Government and the Scottish Government need to work together. This is about getting the right balance and having the best of both worlds. Sometimes it will be right for people in Cumbernauld to know that they have exactly the same protection and support as people in Cardiff or Carlisle. On other occasions, the Scottish Parliament might want to offer different help for people in Scotland, using the taxes that have been raised in Scotland.
Ian Murray
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that explanation, but the point that he is missing is that there is no incentive for either local government or the Scottish Government to build new affordable homes, because the housing benefit bill comes from a different Government—the UK Government. Devolving responsibility for housing benefit would devolve the responsibility to build more affordable and social homes and the accountability for so doing.
David Mundell
This is a matter for the hon. Gentleman’s and my colleagues to raise in the Scottish Parliament. They need to hold the Scottish Government to account for their housing policies.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would also carry a significant cost, and although it appears to be a simple proposition, that is in fact far from being the case. On that basis, I am unable to recommend acceptance of the proposal. As I have said, however, I am reflecting on all the amendments that have been tabled. My intention is to move as quickly as possible to achieve the devolution of these significant welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that we can move on and have a proper, mature debate in Scotland about how the powers should be used and who is going to pay the cost of any additional benefits that might be proposed by a future Scottish Government.
Dr Whiteford
I will not give way just at the moment, because I think we have talked quite enough about Greece. I want to make a couple of substantive points about the issues that were raised, however.
Whatever differences Scotland and Greece have, what we have in common, apart from our patron saint, is the fact that people in Scotland will feel great sympathy for their fellow European citizens in Greece and will have a sense of solidarity about the level of deprivation they are having to undergo. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, made the important point that the real morality tale from the Greek situation that is relevant to our discussions today is that austerity does not work and that we need the power to create alternatives to it.
The other salutary tale we heard this afternoon came from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) who, with his usual eloquence, drew on his experiences in Northern Ireland to warn of the difficulties ahead if we fail to legislate clearly. He also warned of the dangers of what has been termed “karaoke legislation” in Northern Ireland, in which people have powers but not the power to enforce those powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) made a powerful speech that highlighted some of the real differences between the challenges we face with welfare and pensions in Scotland and those in other parts of the UK, pointing out the low life expectancy and the poor value that Scottish pensioners get. Indeed, we have some of the lowest pensions in Europe and Scottish pensioners end up about £10,000 each worse off because of our pension arrangements. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) drew attention to the issues with the work allowance, which is a really good example of what we might do with these powers to improve the support we give to lower paid workers.
Above all, we need to talk about the veto. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who is quickly becoming one of the stars of this Parliament, set out how new clauses 45 and 46 would enable constructive working between the UK and Scottish Governments. That means not just fine words about constructive working but fine working.
To move on to those who spoke from the Front Benches, I welcome the support from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for our lead amendment and for amendment 119. I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State’s conclusion to the debate. I fully accept that there are constructive relationships through the joint ministerial working group and many other parts of the Scottish and UK Governments, but when there are genuine differences of opinion and of ideological direction as well as different policies and different circumstances, we need the mechanisms and the legislation that enable us to deal with them effectively. That is what we still do not see on the face of the Bill.
The problem is that the Bill, in its current form, does not cut the mustard. The Secretary of State’s position on this could probably be summed up by the old saying, “They’re aw oot o’ step but oor Jock.” There is a consensus in Scotland, among all the other Scottish MPs, among MSPs, including MSPs from the Secretary of State’s own party, and among civil society that the veto needs to be taken out of the Bill. I urge the Secretary of State to listen. Part of the problem in Scotland for too long has been that people have not listened, but the voices of the people of Scotland will not be silenced. If the Secretary of State thinks that these issues will go away, I can tell him that they will not. We have heard salutary lessons about why we need to have the legislation pinned down and secure.
Earlier in the debate, I should also have stated my intention to move new clauses 39 and 40 and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South for flagging up that omission. We will press—
Dr Whiteford
I am just summing up. We will press new clause 39 to a vote later, and in the meantime we also want to vote on amendment 118.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ian Murray
The hon. Lady is making a marvellous speech about the devolution of the Work programme. I had a private Member’s Bill last year to devolve the Work programme not just to the Scottish Parliament but to the local authorities that are delivering many of the programmes. Would she go further and agree with double devolution down to local authorities?
Hannah Bardell
I would certainly be interested in taking a closer look at that and discussing it with my colleagues. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
To deal with youth unemployment, that approach is supported by the EU. We are keen for the powers that we were promised to be delivered to Scotland. Delivery of those powers and agreement on our proposals today would help to create a more joined-up approach to employment service provision for disabled people, as well as for the many others who have been mentioned, and more integrated support for these vulnerable groups.
Although it is demand-led, the current DWP spend on Access to Work in Scotland is disproportionately low. The Scottish Government have previously stated that the programme should be devolved to allow us to promote a more equitable share of spend in Scotland and to get more disabled people into sustained employment.
In summary, it is not just the SNP that sees significant flaws in the Bill. Citizens Advice Scotland notes:
“The Smith Commission Report…provided that the Scottish Parliament should have powers over all employment programmes currently contracted by the DWP. However, Clause 26 of the Bill restricts the powers devolved to employment support programmes that last at least a year. It is unclear why this restriction has been included; the Bill as drafted would appear to only devolve the Work Programme and Work Choice; which is inconsistent with Smith. Clause 26 as currently drafted does not clearly devolve powers over the Access to Work Scheme.”
Both the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Scottish Association for Mental Health support the amendments, which serve to devolve all employment powers and functions to Scotland covering Access to Work, devolution of services and Jobcentre Plus.
In Scotland, with the limited powers we have, we have proven that we can make a difference to people’s lives. The SNP Scottish Government have done their best to mitigate the damage done by Westminster cuts to date, but time is running out. If we do not gain the powers that were promised, we cannot continue to protect the vulnerable and grow our economy.
We have an excellent track record on apprenticeships and training for young people. In 2007, just 15,000 people started modern apprenticeships. We are now delivering more than 25,000 of them, and we will increase the number to 30,000 by 2020. To reply to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), the Scottish Government’s Opportunities for All programme has also been a significant success, with more than 90% of young people going on to positive destinations. In my own county of West Lothian, the figure stands at more than 96%. We are glad to announce today that the Scottish Government has got its 250th business, a nursery in West Lothian, to sign up to the living wage.
The opportunity to work is one that the vast majority of people in Scotland seek. The SNP wants dignity in work for all, and I commend our proposals to the Committee.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman is right. The Access to Work programme is a device to help people enter, stay in and progress in work, and it supports very senior people in highly qualified positions. It would be regrettable if changes to the programme were to put that at risk.
There could be real advantage to devolving Access to Work or similar programmes because the decision-making and administration processes might be swifter and more attuned to the needs of the local labour market and workforce with that level of devolution. Given the problems that we know are being experienced with the national programme—which appears quite inflexible in the way it deals with people—perhaps the measure could be devolved as part of this package.
Ian Murray
Perhaps I should sit down and allow my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) to guess what might be in my speech—he could also give us Saturday’s lottery numbers while he is at it.
Ian Murray
He might not be that good. If he had won the lottery he would not be wearing that suit—I can be nasty to my own side, as well as to the SNP.
Clauses 26 to 30 are largely concerned with minor and technical changes to existing legislation. Amendment 113 would allow the provision of employment programmes where assistance is for less than one year. The reasoning behind that does not require much explanation, other than to point out that many people move jobs several times a year, especially in the current highly fluid labour market in which there is a dearth of long-term secure employment. Indeed, the labour market seems short-term and insecure with poorly paid work. Many people in part-time jobs are looking for full-time work, and many people are on zero-hours contracts.
The Smith agreement states that the Scottish Parliament
“will have all powers over support for unemployed people through the employment programmes currently contracted to DWP”.
However, clause 26 currently restricts the powers devolved to employment support programmes that last at least a year. Amendment 113 would remove that restriction to allow the development of programmes to support those who move in and out of work within one year.
Amendment 9 emphasises that employment support programmes in Scotland must be developed in close conjunction with local authorities. That will ensure that service delivery is tailored to the needs and circumstances of local communities and is responsive to the local jobs market. In that regard, we are happy to support amendments 120, 121 and 122, which provide for the creation of new employment programmes in Scotland, on the understanding that they are developed and run in close conjunction with local authorities.
Mike Weir
Will the hon. Gentleman expand on the position of local authorities? I made the point to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about the nature of many local authorities in Scotland, which would make it slightly more difficult to devolve the issue to local authority level than in certain other areas.
Ian Murray
I agree to a certain extent. In the area the hon. Gentleman represents, many of the local authorities are either incredibly small in population terms or incredibly large in geographical terms, and that would have its challenges. But many local authorities work together on many aspects of Scottish local government life. For example, Edinburgh works closely with Midlothian, a local authority that is smaller than my constituency. East Lothian, West Lothian and Fife also tend to work together on many issues. While we would like to see double devolution to local authorities, it does not necessarily mean to one individual authority. Many authorities would probably work together to try to make the best use of work programmes and job opportunities.
Ian Murray
I will give way to my hon. Friend, who will probably tell me what I am about to say.
Andrew Gwynne
I can tell him that the bonus ball will be 32.
The issue of local authorities is important. Of course, the Manchester example is not one single local authority: it is a combined authority of 10 metropolitan borough councils. It would also be possible in Scotland and other parts of the UK for local authorities to come together to bid for the work programmes.
Ian Murray
I hope the bonus ball this week is not 32, otherwise we will be in trouble.
My hon. Friend is right: it is about local authorities working together. There is nothing wrong with saying that the Scottish Parliament has been a centralist Government—that is what happened as a result of the policies that were pursued. That is a legitimate choice for a Government to make. All we are suggesting is that perhaps some of the work programmes that would be best delivered by local authorities are sent to them. I know that my own local authority, Edinburgh, runs several highly successful programmes, such as the JET programme for young people and other programmes to get disabled people and others into work, and we should trust them to do that.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Opportunities for All programme, which was mentioned earlier, is a good example of a policy area in which the Scottish Government are working closely with local authorities to deliver services and opportunities for young people? Similarly, the Scottish welfare fund is another good example of a scheme administered and delivered by local authorities. When the hon. Gentleman talks about a centralist Government, he needs to remember that 90% of ring-fenced funding has been devolved to local authorities by the Scottish Government. He might want to take a look at Wales, where the Labour Government seem to want to abolish local authorities all together.
Ian Murray
I did not want to turn this into a political argument: I merely wanted to point out that work programmes are best delivered by local authorities. If the Welsh Government have made the decision that they are best delivered in a different way, it is up to them. The hon. Lady highlights, however, that devolution across the UK provides an array of ways to deliver services, and I hope that the Scottish Government take note of this debate and consider whether we should have double devolution. The principle of subsidiarity across the European Union and the UK, which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) promoted in his new clause, should sit happily and firmly with the Scottish Government and their relationship with local government.
Local government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have said clearly that local authorities across Scotland feel that they have been strangled, and we need to address that important point.
Mike Weir
I am not trying to be difficult, but it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would provide that the Scottish Parliament “must” devolve the power to local authorities. It would not always be appropriate for a local authority—or even a group of local authorities—to have that power. If he wants to pursue devolution of such powers, more flexibility would be needed, and the amendment is flawed in that regard.
Ian Murray
In all the time I have known him, the hon. Gentleman has never been difficult. We are debating a Bill that we feel does not go far enough in spirit or substance. We want the Scottish Parliament to have more power. The hon. Gentleman, the Scottish National party Chief Whip, wants to hold on to that power with both hands. He does not want to release any of it but wants to keep it in Edinburgh and Holyrood, so he can build an ivory tower for Scotland. He does not want to give it to local authorities.
Ian Murray
I am delighted that I have been able to give the hon. Gentleman a little exercise by making him bounce up and down.
Mike Weir
The hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords on many Bills. He is misrepresenting what I said—not deliberately, I am sure. As I read it, if the amendment is agreed to, that would mean an obligation to devolve to each individual local authority. That is not what he is saying now about a conglomeration of local authorities. The amendment is flawed; the idea behind it is not so flawed, but the way it is written is.
Ian Murray
We are in trouble: I cannot even persuade the people who agree with the broad principle, and I am trying to persuade the Government to accept the amendment. It may be badly drafted, but the hon. Gentleman knows how this place works. We table our amendments in Committee to press the Government to do something about a particular piece of legislation, and the Government ultimately reject them. Of the 87 amendments that I tabled to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, 87 were rejected, although I was delighted that four or five came back as the Government’s own ideas on Report. That is essentially what will happen. The Secretary of State said he would go away and reflect, and I am sure he will do just that—go away and reflect on the amendments he may be able to claim as his own, and those he will ultimately reject on Report.
I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir). I put on the record that we agreed on most things when we crossed swords in other Committees, particularly with regard to the privatisation of Royal Mail and the Postal Services Bill. We do not always disagree.
The broad principle of double devolution—transferring powers from Holyrood to local communities—is one we should all support to ensure that we have powerhouse local authorities in Scotland and to place power closer to the people we seek to represent. It is a fairly obvious thing to say, but local authorities know their local jobs markets better than anyone else. The landscape of a jobs market in one local authority, or one conglomerate of local authorities, will be very different from others.
We should be looking to tailor employment support programmes not just to individual needs and individual community needs, but to areas where there will be a greater need for a certain skill set than in other areas. For example, my city is at the forefront of financial services and academia. Rural constituencies will be completely different. Local authorities would be able to tailor those programmes. Crucially, something we tend not to talk about in this House is not just transferring power but transferring the resources that go with it. Local authorities in Scotland are being completely starved of the resources they require to do the job we want them to do.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) made a great speech. She said many things we would absolutely agree with. One glaring omission, however, was anything on retraining, education, further education and reskilling. Further education is not just the mechanism for young people to go back into education, or to be retrained or reskilled; it is the place where many people get a second chance. They are able to go back to something they perhaps failed at many years ago, or to retrain after having a family. Scotland is suffering from having 144,000 fewer college places than we did in 2007. That is hampering those second chances.
If the devolution of the Work programme does end up at the Scottish Parliament, I hope it ultimately ends up with local authorities.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, so it must be true. We would then be able to resolve the issue of the college places that have been lost.
Amendment 114 would provide for the devolution of the Access to Work scheme to the Scottish Parliament. Access to Work provides practical advice and support to disabled people, and their employers, to help them to overcome work-related obstacles resulting from disability. It is an incredibly powerful and important programme. A close friend of mine, Mark Cooper, who has cerebral palsy, has been on it for some time. He took a job that covered maternity leave in Glasgow, 45 miles away, and was able to work with the employer and the programme to travel to Glasgow and secure an adapted workplace.
Ian Murray
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not normally make points of order, but I wonder whether you can confirm that we have just voted on new clause 39, on the fundamental principle of the devolution of national insurance, without having had any debate on it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, that is not a point of order. I know he would not question the Chair as the decision was taken earlier.
Welfare Reform (Sick and Disabled People)
Ian Murray Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Hollingbery
Indeed it did. The expert panel that sat to adjudicate on every single one of those test cases took the advice of mental health experts. A number of mental health specialists are now provided with specialist training in the testing regime. I think the figure is 30, but that is off the top of my head and it may be as many as 60.
In the fourth report, Dr Litchfield largely endorses the position I outline. He says:
“Any ‘test’ is necessarily a trade-off of many factors and the WCA appears to be a reasonable and pragmatic tool.”
There remain those who call for its abolition, but suggestions for what to replace it with are rarely forthcoming. No test is ever perfect, but the WCA has been designed with considerable rigour and is subject to a process of continuous improvement.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive this slightly tortuous journey through the WCA, but it is very important to show just how much trouble and care has been taken to design and improve it. It is not perfect and it will not always produce fair and just results, but that is what the appeals process is for and there to catch. That it is necessary to have some sort of objective test to help decision makers seems to me to be undeniable. Hence I cannot support the motion’s call for the abolition of the WCA.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is giving a very technical analysis of the WCA. My constituent, Mr McArdle, who runs the Black Triangle campaigning group, has on his website and Facebook page a whole list of human stories about how the WCA acts in practice. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would mind looking at that after his speech today to get some of the human side, because it is not just about a technical analysis of how these things work.
George Hollingbery
I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that in prefacing my remarks I made it clear that this cannot be a mechanistic process, like some sort of quality control process. It has to involve the human. I acknowledge that there are many cases where results have been, shall we say, questionable—there is no doubt about that. Nevertheless, that it is necessary to have such a test is, I think, undeniable: the Government cannot, will-nilly, go judging entitlement to benefits without any test of any sort. Yes, it is difficult to make the case that I am making without sounding dry and technocratic—I take his point absolutely.
In the time remaining, I would like to draw the House’s attention to some real outcomes produced by my local providers, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will take as a human face of what can be a reasonably successful programme. My local providers are the Shaw Trust in Portsmouth and A4e in Southampton, which is run by a team led by George Gallop. I hope that we can all celebrate some of the results of their work.
Alex, aged 20, was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and found it almost impossible to settle down to any kind of work. A4e’s relationship with Harsco, a large building services company, was crucial in enabling Alex to train for a certificate under the construction skills certification scheme, and to become a scaffolder. Alex said:
“I felt like nobody would ever employ me. I didn’t even know what 1 was doing wrong…it is the kind of job that sets you up for life and I love it. If 1 look at how my life has changed in the last year I can’t believe it”.
Daniel, aged 19, was homeless and unable to look after his young family because he suffered from depression. He was one of the first young people to enter Radian Housing’s “proving talent” programme, delivered by A4e in Southampton. He came through the scheme, and now has a permanent job in technical services with Radian. He said:
“it feels amazing to be back on track, in employment providing for my family and feeling good about myself.”
Sandra, aged 45, was a proud working mum of two, trapped in a wheelchair. Because of ill health, she was made unemployed and became dependent on employment and support allowance. At first she resented being referred to the Work programme, but her advisers and trainers helped to motivate her, and to give her the confidence and skills that she needed in order to return to work. She said:
“Now I think about what I can do, instead of what I can’t”.
David broke his back in an accident in 1997, and received incapacity benefit for more than 15 years. At an ESA work-focused interview in December 2012, he was asked when he had last had a good laugh and when he had last smiled. He replied that what had saved his life was a passion for his reptile collection. David and his wife have now signed off from ESA, and have set up their own business in a shop in Copnor road, Portsmouth, selling and boarding exotic pets.
To me, those are inspiring stories of people afflicted by disability and sickness who, with the right help from the right people at the right time, have managed to find their way back into employment, and, in so doing, have rediscovered their sense of self-confidence and self-worth. Of course there is much more to do and many improvements can be made to the system, but surely those are outcomes that we should all celebrate.
Is all rosy in the garden? Of course not. There are still many challenges, and many changes are required. There are still too many people who do not find permanent employment. There are many whose benefit applications and assessments take far too long to process, and who are left without an income in the meantime. As has already been said, the transition from disability living allowance to personal independence payments is proving to be a challenge. For all that, however, the evidence that I see on my visits suggests that many of our fellow citizens are being given a new lease of life by the Government’s approach to welfare, and the central assumption that there is nothing compassionate about—
Food Banks
Ian Murray Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
At the end of last month, I was privileged to visit the West Cheshire food bank in my constituency. Like all food banks, it is run by a group of hard-working volunteers and supported by generous donations from across Cheshire. My visit to the food bank was an opportunity not just to see the fantastic volunteers who make it happen but to hear first hand the reasons people are using food banks. The results were striking. Figures from my local food bank show that 59% of those who have used the food bank since April have visited because of changes to benefits and a growing number of people are visiting because of sanctions.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentions his food bank. The food bank in my constituency, run in a joint venture by the Trussell Trust and Blythswood Care, has seen a six times increase in the number of people using it this year alone, mainly due to benefit changes. The Government will not listen to us on the benefit changes, but, given the wonderful start to his speech, will he put pressure on his Ministers, who have been deplorable in this Chamber this afternoon, to make them see sense and make changes so that people do not starve this winter?
Stephen Mosley
I shall come on to that point.
The Department for Work and Pensions is the front-line organisation dealing with people in that position and that is why I support wholeheartedly the Government’s decision to allow jobcentres to advertise and refer people to their local food bank. That is also why it was such a big mistake for the previous Government to ban jobcentres from referring people, depriving people of the information they needed to get food at times of emergency.
Let us make no mistake about it: food banks were not created by, for or because of this Government. They predate the Government, they predate recent welfare changes and they reflect deep long-term problems with our benefits system. As the majority of people who need food bank assistance are those who face changes to benefits, the clear long-term solution is a more joined-up benefits system. The solutions proposed by the Opposition in their motion do not tackle the root cause of the problem. They are short-term sticking plasters that merely cover up the cracks in the welfare system. We need a long-term solution to fix the problem once and for all.
Housing Benefit
Ian Murray Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Since we have heard a lot of anecdotes from Labour Members, perhaps I should tell one or two myself. I was contacted by the BBC—not an organisation known for its right-wing reactionary views—and asked to meet and talk to people affected by the spare room subsidy. I went along and heard some very interesting stories. I met a lady in her late 50s who had worked her entire life. Her family had left and she lived on her own in a house with too many bedrooms. She was going to have to move. Having been made redundant, she had gone out and got herself another job in an area where it was difficult to do that. I had a great deal of respect for that lady, and I still do. I feel sorry for her. I think one would have to have a heart of stone not to feel sorry for somebody in that position. However, when a system is spending billions of pounds and looking after millions of people and that system then changes, there will always be people with unfortunate stories to tell, and I believe that she was one of them.
David T. C. Davies
I will give way once, and once only, to an Opposition Member. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to give way now, I shall be happy to do so.
Ian Murray
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity. There is a point that he and his hon. Friends continually miss. I have a constituent who is disabled and lives in a two-bedroom council property. Given that 660 people in my constituency are affected by the bedroom tax and 25,000 are on the housing list, the only way in which he can move to a one-bedroom property in Edinburgh is to go into the private sector. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that will cause the housing benefit bill to rise?
David T. C. Davies
Let me return to what I was saying. The BBC took me to meet three groups of people, whom it had chosen. The second lady whom I met was looking after four children. They were not her own children; she was their grandmother. The mother, because she was not the main carer for the children, was going to lose out on housing. What those people wanted were two large houses to look after the same family. While I felt sorry for everyone involved, including the children, I have to say that the state is not there to provide not one, but two sets of very large houses for people with large numbers of children.
Another question arose while I was meeting that lady, and it is a frank question. I never use the term “single mother” because I think that it is pejorative, and it has affected people in my own family. I think it is a generalisation. However, I have absolutely no hesitation in talking about feckless fathers. Those children had been brought into the world by a group of different males, and those males, having brought those children into the world, had disappeared and left the two ladies to try to bring them up themselves.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Webb
If that were all we had done, no of course it would not be. Many of the Government’s anti-fraud authorities, including, among others, the Serious Fraud Office, are working with us. One of the challenges is that the money is sometimes transferred overseas, where we have less jurisdiction. However, what we need is trustees not to be transferring money—authorising the transfer of money—out into suspicious pension funds. So trustees have a part to play, as do scheme members.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
3. What recent assessment he has made of the effects of the Government’s proposal for a single-tier pension on women born between 6 April 1952 and 6 July 1953.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the effects of the Government’s proposal for a single-tier pension on women born between 6 April 1952 and 6 July 1953.
Mr Speaker
The Minister is a man of formidable intellect and therefore I hesitate ordinarily to disagree with him, but I think that the grouping is with Questions 6, 7 and 16. I hope he does not mind.
Ian Murray
The Minister may have a formidable intellect but I am going to disagree with him. As he will know, half a million women born between 1952 and 1953, many of whom will have celebrated mother’s day yesterday, will lose out on this single-tier pension. Will he apologise to the 700 women in my constituency who are affected and have written to me? Will he do something before they lose out?
Steve Webb
I take your correction on the question numbers, Mr Speaker.
I think that the hon. Gentleman should apologise to the 700 women in his constituency, as he seems to be asking us to treat them the same as a man born on the same day—that appears to be the essence of his problem. If we did that, those women would have to wait up to three years longer for their pension, and they would not thank him for that.
Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)
Ian Murray Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Whiteford
My right hon. Friend makes a timely point given the debate that took place in the House earlier in the week.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a wonderful speech on this dreadful bedroom tax. Perhaps she will also consider another group involved in caring for children—parents who have split up. Access agreements made by the court for two people in my constituency are based on the fact that they have an extra bedroom. The Government are essentially saying to them, “Find the money for the extra bedroom or lose access to your children.”
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Families going through a break-up often face some of the most complex and difficult situations for people to resolve, and we know that the cost of children growing up without a parent can be considerable both in social terms and because of the impact on the individual who is separated from a parent. This legislation will make it more difficult for non-resident parents to stay in touch and maintain proper contact with their children, and that is reprehensible.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has certainly put his point on the record.
Ian Murray
The Minister is being generous in giving way so early in his contribution. Can this Liberal Democrat Minister honestly say that it is fair to throw disabled people out of their house because of this bedroom tax, while giving millionaires £2,000 extra a week?
Steve Webb
On the tax treatment of the wealthy, I understand that Britain’s millionaires are demanding a return to the halcyon days of Labour when they paid a 40% top rate of tax, not 45%, and when they paid 18% capital gains tax, not 28%. I hope he is proud of Labour’s record on not taxing high earners as much as we are doing.
Pensions and Social Security
Ian Murray Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman knows that we have demanded not only an inflation-level rise this year but a similar rise for both the two years covered by the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. As to our policies for beyond the next election, he will have to await our manifesto, just as the whole country is eagerly awaiting it. It will tell him how we will put these problems right.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am—I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland this question this morning—that it is a Liberal Democrat Minister who is about to give the biggest tax cut to millionaires the country has ever seen, while at the same time ensuring that people trying to do the right thing are worse off?
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That does surprise me very much because in opposition the Minister’s party used to champion reducing child poverty. In government, however, it has surrendered and is cutting in real terms the incomes of the poorest in what is frankly a craven surrender to the Tory party at its worst. It is implementing policies that even Mrs Thatcher did not dare propose.
Ian Murray
I think what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) is trying to say is that the 50p tax rate created £7 billion of tax avoidance, so rather than going after the tax avoidance the Government have reduced the rate.
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is right: if it is an avoidance problem, the Treasury should address that.
Strivers will pay the price for the Government’s economic failure. The most vulnerable are being hammered and the rich are getting a tax cut. The solution is to get Britain back to work. That is why we have argued for our compulsory jobs guarantee. It will cost about £1 billion a year. We will pay for it by restricting the tax relief on pensions saving for those earning over £150,000 per year. We will guarantee anyone over 25 who has been in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance for two years the offer of a choice of jobs or a training position, and after that the payment of jobseeker’s allowance will cease.
The case for our compulsory jobs guarantee received a welcome boost from the Minister’s Department when it published an evaluation of the last Government’s future jobs fund. I am grateful to both Ministers who are in their places on the Front Bench for the publication of this helpful and informative evaluation. The evaluation pointed out just how successful the future jobs fund was in getting young people back to work. It estimated that the net benefit to society as a whole was £7,500 for every participant in the future jobs fund, and that is after taking account of all the costs of the initiative. Of the gross cost of some £750 million for the future jobs fund, over half was recouped by the Treasury in additional tax payments and reduced benefit payments. Our compulsory jobs guarantee will repeat that success for the over-25s. We will get Britain back to work; we will end this punishing spiral of increasing struggle for strivers and for the most vulnerable in order to fund, as the Government find they have to do, the price of ever-increasing unemployment.
The proposals in this order for working-age benefits are a disgrace, although the Minister made a perfectly fair point in his speech earlier—that an increase is better than no increase at all. The proposals for pensions uprating are worth having—I put it no more strongly than that—but the proposals for working-age benefits are shameful and quite contrary to everything the Minister’s party argued for when in opposition. I hope that in the course of this evening’s debate we will be able fully to expose that.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
It is a shame that if we talk for as long as many of us would like to talk tonight, we will probably be slightly unpopular with some. However, people who will be affected by these changes will be watching these proceedings, and they will be dismayed to see that this important debate has been tacked on to the end of the parliamentary day and not a single Conservative Back Bencher is sufficiently interested to want to take part in it. When I was standing for election in 2010, the Liberal Democrats used to like to position themselves, at every hustings I was at, somewhere to the left of Labour, but it is their Back Benchers who are defending the Government’s choices—for they are choices. The public have to be well aware of that.
One regrettable thing about what has been happening for nearly three years now is the constant pitting of one group against another: older people against younger people, and people in work against those not in work. That is not helpful because it provides no analysis of the real roots of the problems facing us. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) has been doing a good job of defending the Government. He made the point about how out-of-work benefits have risen by more than earnings in the past five years, using it to justify the 1% rise. However, he knows that if we look at a different time period, we come up with a very different figure. Since 1979, unemployment benefit and its successor benefit, jobseeker’s allowance, has fallen from 22% of average earnings to 11% of average earnings. We are starting from a very low base indeed, and it is not right or fair therefore to say that 1% is adequate for people who are struggling.
Why are we in some of these spending positions? The irony of all this is that so many of the policies we are facing will drive up spending, be it on some of the benefits under discussion today or on the related benefits—the ones that would come under the tax system at the moment, such as tax credits. Some 90% of new housing benefit claimants in the past couple of years have been people in work, and that has been because of the level of wages and because these people are in part-time work. That has been driving up the housing benefit totals, which the Government are very concerned about, as I am. I am not comfortable with the fact that, as we are told repeatedly, the housing benefit bill has risen so much in the past 10 years, but we need to examine the reasons for that. The major reason is that so many people on low incomes are finding themselves with no other housing choice but the private rented sector, the cost of which in housing benefit is very high. If we do not tackle that underlying issue, in one way or another, be it by creating more affordable housing or by dealing with the issue of private sector rents, the housing benefit bill will still creep up and up, and in a couple of years’ time we will not have made any progress in reducing it.
In the meantime, many of our constituents living in low rent housing are about to have their income cut substantially. I have a constituent in her 50s who lives in a house that is not grand—it is a two-bedroom house, where the second bedroom is small and the kitchen opens off the living room. That removes the notion that she could have someone in to share—one of the Minister’s fondest examples. At her age and stage of life, why should she be expected to live in that way? She will be losing £50 a month in April, and I can assure the Minister that in my city the choices of where to move to are very limited, even if she wanted to move or should move.
When we are looking at a figure of 1%, we have to consider what is happening in the wider sphere. If just one thing—one change—were happening, it would not be quite so painful for a lot of families, but these things are happening to the same people. I give the example of a lady who is on employment and support allowance in the work-related activity group. She will be suffering from the 1% rise as well as from the £50 knocked off her housing benefit. People such as her have to deal with the cumulative effect of what is happening. She did not want to be claiming benefit. She did not want to fall ill in her 50s, but it is something that, after a working life, has happened to her and to thousands and thousands of people like her up and down this country.
Instead of dealing with the issue in this rather rushed way, perhaps the Government could do as some organisations have asked and make a cumulative impact assessment of the effects of the change on disability. Why do we not have that, and why do we not make time available for a proper debate? We need to see what is happening. Some people may see the change as relatively small, but a whole package of measures is coming in.
I am seeing a big change. A couple of years back, people would say that the Government’s welfare reforms were all about “those terrible scroungers—it’s not me and mine, it’s somebody else.” Now, people come to my surgeries and ask, “Why is this happening to me? I’m not a scrounger. How come this is happening? I’ve worked hard all my life, so why is it happening to me?” People are not inherently either workless or working. People move in and out of work, particularly at the lower-paid end of the spectrum.
We know why the measure had to be brought in this year. It was because the Government’s economic policies had failed. I am glad the hon. Member for Eastbourne decided to raise the question of jobs. It is frequently said in this place that 1 million private sector jobs have been created, and therefore our economic policy is working. The Prime Minister says it all the time. In January 2011, within a short time of coming into office, the Government told us that half a million new private sector jobs had been created. Presumably that was the true figure at the time. Many of us think that one of the reasons for the increase in jobs was the economic stimulus applied by the previous Government; it was certainly very soon for the coalition Government’s policies to have taken effect. If that figure was correct and the figure of 1 million is correct, since then—two years ago—apparently only half a million jobs have been created. But—it is a big but—in that period, 170,000 jobs in colleges were reclassified from the public to the private sector, and 100,000 jobs appear to be unpaid work placements. At the last Department for Work and Pensions questions, the employment Minister, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) admitted that unpaid jobs were being counted in the total. Apparently, the Prime Minister does not know, because he still talks about his million jobs and how wonderful it all is.
Ian Murray
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has allowed me to intervene to point out that the other big contributors to the million new jobs total are people on short and zero hours contracts. They are classified as employed when they are not being paid.
Mr Brown
I do not know whether it will be £40 billion, because I have not seen the figures, but I trust what my hon. Friend says. There is no doubt that it will have a severe and adverse impact on the economy.
I come now to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made about families and children. If we do not give the next generation the right start in life when they are children, we give them the wrong start. I must say to the Minister that even now we see across our country the struggle that my party had in government to undo some of the damage from the previous 18 years. The damage can be done in a short period, but it takes an awful lot longer to recover from. We struggled in government to try to get things back on track. What the Minister is doing today is not what he said he would do when he was in opposition.
When he leaves this place tonight, I implore the Minister to pick up a copy of a documentary called “Poor Kids”. I have seen it a couple of times and it is heart-breaking, to say the least. As a father and grandfather, I say to the Minister that what the documentary shows is not beyond belief, because it does happen. It happens in many towns and cities across this country where families are living on basically nothing. Children as young as eight, nine or 10 years old have become worldly wise: they know about not having money and what debt is, and they understand how trying to put a meal on the table can result in other elements of poverty. That is not how children in this country should be spending their early years. They survive on hand-me-down clothes, not necessarily from older brothers or sisters but from other family members. Despite what many people think, charity shops on our high streets are an absolute godsend for such families, because sometimes they are the only way children can be clothed.
Parents sometimes sacrifice their own meals to feed their children. Perhaps I have led a sheltered life, but it was only when it was drawn to my attention that some mothers will prepare a meal for their children and tell them, “I’ll get something to eat later,” that I realised—I take no pleasure in saying this—that I witnessed that as a child in my household. I was part of a family of five and I know only too well now—perhaps I was naive when I was younger—that that was going on in my household. I witnessed my mother having nothing to eat while the rest of the family sat waiting for my father to come home from work.
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly impassioned speech. The stories from the documentary and those that we all hear in our constituency advice sessions—one family in my constituency has been living off the cheapest white bread and jam for the past few months—are happening now, before the impact of any of these changes is felt, and the inflation of energy and food prices, the bedroom tax and the 1% uprating will make the situation not just worse but much worse.
Mr Brown
My hon. Friend is spot on. It is very difficult for families at the moment and it is about to get worse. The Minister mentioned the housing benefit changes. Some places are under-occupied and we all have families coming to us regularly—almost weekly—saying that they need an extra bedroom. Surely the Minister and other Government Members know, however, that to marry up families who are under-occupying and those who are overcrowding is a mammoth task.
Gregg McClymont
The Secretary of State must be less exuberant from a sedentary position.
I shall move rapidly on to the strivers tax. It is clear that strivers have been hit by a tax to pay the cost of the Government’s economic failure, while at the same time millionaires have received a £107,000 tax cut.
Ian Murray
Does my hon. Friend share my deep concern that this does not really have anything to do with economic policy or the deficit, but is driven by ideology?
Gregg McClymont
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Chancellor thought that he could play clever politics and draw dividing lines between different sections of society, but he did not take it into account that this would hit those in work above all else. I am afraid that he has been too clever by half.
Let us be clear. One of the groups that will be particularly hard hit will be women. House of Commons Library analysis is clear that two thirds of those hit overall by the real-terms cut in benefits and tax credits are women.
Steve Webb
In fact, the IFS figures are based on the percentage increases and, as we have been reminded repeatedly in the debate, the cash amounts for the very highest income earners are far higher for any given percentage figure. So, even taking percentages instead of cash amounts, the highest earners have, in the IFS’s words, been “hit the hardest”.
Steve Webb
No, I want to make some progress.
The right hon. Member for East Ham referred to the triple lock and the increase of 2.5% over inflation, compared with 2.2%, as derisory. I remind him that the extra 0.3% cost the taxpayer £150 million. I remember the funny-money days of Labour when £150 million was considered a mere rounding error. He dismisses it as derisory. When his party was in office, it was borrowing £150 billion a year, so I appreciate that for him £150 million is small change, but I still have the naive feeling that that amount is a lot of money. He and others derided our triple lock as though it were a trifle and of no consequence, but had Labour implemented the triple lock between 1997 and now, we would be spending an additional £3 billion on the state pension. So if Labour had applied the triple lock that he derides as inconsequential throughout their term in office, we would be spending £3 billion a year more on pensions. But perhaps he thinks that that sum is derisory, and a frippery, as well.
We have also been hearing about strivers. This is the classic dog-whistle politics of the Opposition. They accuse us of trying to divide people, yet they suddenly divide people—[Interruption.] It is not our side that has used that language.
Steve Webb
The Opposition have tried to divide people into “strivers” and “somebody else”. I am not sure who the “somebody else” is—a non-striver, perhaps. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) is shouting out, but he is the man who said in his conference speech that Labour was on the side of the strivers, not the shirkers. We know who uses that language.
Why is it necessary to have the fiscal consolidation? It is because of the Labour party’s debts. There was £150 billion of borrowing in the final year of the last Labour Government. Labour takes no responsibility for that but, had the previous Chancellor’s plans been put into operation, it would have had to implement substantial spending cuts on public sector pay—which it has finally now agreed—and on benefits. Have we heard a single suggestion from the Opposition today on how they would make savings? They simply oppose every cut, pretend to be on the side of the poor, and never accept responsibility for how we got into this mess in the first place.
Steve Webb
No.
A number of people have said that we are the seventh richest country in the world, in terms of our gross national product per head, but we are of course also the country that was brought to the brink of bankruptcy by the last Labour Government. That is what we have had to deal with.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway mentioned people having their disability-related benefit reassessed. I would gently remind him that reassessing the millions of people on incapacity benefit, many of whom had been parked on benefit for a decade or more, was begun, rightly, by the last Labour Government. That process has been carried on. That is why people are being reassessed. We think it right not to park people on incapacity benefit for decades, only for them to retire and find that they have no pension either. So the reassessments are right. I entirely accept the point that they have to be done well, but they were begun under the last Government and they continue under this one.
Steve Webb
The Government fully accept that Labour’s work capability assessment was not working when we came into office, which is why we commissioned Professor Harrington to undertake a series of reviews. We have implemented his recommendations to make the test better, and that will continue under a new assessor.
Steve Webb
No. We have heard a lot of handwringing from the Opposition Front Bench, but no alternative proposition. We have been told that this measure will be devastating and cost the poorest people in the land billions of pounds, so surely we can have a commitment from the Labour party to reverse it. I think the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said this measure was “egregious”, and we have heard how evil and unkind it is, so the Labour party is clearly committed to reversing it. However, those on the Front Bench know that they will weep crocodile tears and try to persuade people that they actually care about this stuff, but they will not find a penny to reverse any of it. That is the truth.
Steve Webb
No, I am reaching a conclusion.
We are bringing forward regulations that will increase the pension by more than the rate of inflation, taking it to the highest share of average earnings for more than 20 years. We are uprating key disability benefits by the rate of inflation, and ensuring that even in these straitened times we are able to increase benefits for people of working age. I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of and approves the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 28 January.—(Steve Webb.)
Employment Support
Ian Murray Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman really should have been listening to what I was talking about. Under the Labour Administration, 28 factories were closed in very difficult circumstances. What we are doing differently is making sure that the proper support is put in place, which it probably was not in the case of factories closed under Labour. We want to make sure that disabled people who are affected by the plans today have that support, and I hope I can call on the hon. Gentleman’s support to make sure that his constituents are aware of it.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
In 2007, the Conservatives said they would do all they could to support Remploy when they were in government. Does the Minister agree that the shambolic and shameful way the statement has been made today epitomises the Government’s cavalier and out-of-touch attitude to vulnerable people, and represents a broken promise to the dozens of disabled people in Edinburgh who are losing their jobs tonight?
Maria Miller
I am sorry; the hon. Gentleman needs to listen to what I am saying here. What we have done as a Government is to follow the Labour modernisation plan. We have followed it for the last two years and continued to make sure that in these tough economic times £555 million continued to be available. What we are not doing is wasting money; we are making sure that the money we have is going further.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Miller
I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does to support her local residential training college. I absolutely agree that colleges such as the one in her constituency have a valuable role to play, particularly to offer specialist advice and support. I hope that the commitment that I have given the colleges to ensure provision through to the summer of 2013 will help them to plan for a future in which we focus more on individuals than on institutions.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
T6. Recent reports have shown that more than £3 billion of pension charges are hidden from consumers. Will the Minister tell us what the Government plan to do to make it possible for pension fund trustees and consumers to compare charges between pension funds?
Steve Webb
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that charges are a crucial issue, so we are working with the National Association of Pension Funds and others who have undertaken an industry-led initiative to make charges information-transparent and consistent, and we are pleased to support them in that.