Railways
Debate between Ian Murray and Sheila Gilmore(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pensions and Social Security
Debate between Ian Murray and Sheila Gilmore(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Ian Murray and Sheila Gilmore(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
4. What representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 2013 Budget.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
5. What representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 2013 Budget.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
I am in close contact with the Scottish business community and Treasury colleagues in the run-up to Budget 2013, and I have discussed with them a range of measures to support economic growth and fairness.
Constitutional Law
Debate between Ian Murray and Sheila Gilmore(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire). She has just given 10 minutes of a wonderful speech that welcomed the section 30 order and highlighted the dangers ahead of us. It is also a great pleasure to take part in the same debate as my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). He gave a powerful and influential speech, which is why he is chair of the Better Together campaign. I can think of no one better to keep the United Kingdom together.
I want to reflect a little on the speech of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who is no longer in his seat. He gave the House an historical canter through Scotland and its relationship with England, and spoke of how parliamentary Chambers and institutions hold people together and become the focal point of where people do things. It is worth reflecting that everyone in this Chamber who has an accent similar to mine or calls themselves Scots can go abroad anywhere in the world, to the four corners of the globe, and chat to people from different countries who think that Scotland is already a separate country because it has its own separate identity, dialect and history. Indeed, constitutionally, being part of the UK means that we can benefit as a country from being part of that Union, while also sharing the wonderful opportunities that having a separate identity as a nation and being Scots brings. We should reflect on that; indeed, the hon. Gentleman allowed us to do so.
Our consideration of this section 30 order is quite an historic moment, because when we pass it this evening—and when it is passed in the other place—it will go north to the Scottish Parliament, which will then have all the powers it requires to run the referendum on separation. I am pleased that that is happening today for a number of reasons, but mainly because it is this party—the Scottish Labour party—that is the party of devolution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland said, one of the first Acts of the new Labour Government in 1997 was to bring forward the referendum to allow the people of Scotland to decide whether they wanted the Scottish Parliament.
Sheila Gilmore
One of the things I particularly remember is that we had a general election in May of that year and the referendum at the beginning of September—a piece of speedy action that the current Scottish Government could do with emulating.
Ian Murray
I am delighted that my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour has made that point. We should reflect on the fact—the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), the leader of the SNP in this House, mentioned this in his contribution—that the SNP has been in existence for 75 years pushing this constitutional point, but does not quite know the answers to the big questions now that they are being asked. With consensus from most Members in the House, the Labour Government were able to proceed with the referendum speedily and give the Scottish people their opportunity to decide whether they wanted a Scottish Parliament.
The process did not stop there, because it was those of us on these Benches—the Scottish Labour party—who delivered the Calman commission and the Scotland Act 1998. Devolution was always supposed to be a process. The 1999 commencement of the Scottish Parliament was never supposed to be the full stop in this constitutional journey, which has continued. Crucially, however, it has continued only under the Scottish Labour party. The Scottish National party has now taken control of the Scottish Parliament. What we have seen since 2007—although more so since 2011—is a party that has taken the wonderful institution that is the Scottish Parliament and turned it into little more than a talking shop for the ruling party, with commanding majorities on its scrutiny Committees. We have only to think about some of the Committees in this House to see how powerful that scrutiny process can be in holding the Executive to account. I can think of numerous occasions on which that has happened, including a Backbench Business debate in the House last week—prompted by a report from the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills—that changed the Government’s policy on dealing with pub companies. That happened because of the power of the Committees in this House.