Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I will make a short statement on the House’s sub judice resolution. There are legal proceedings active in relation to the policy of applying VAT to private schools. However, Mr Speaker issued a waiver on 5 February to allow reference to those cases, now and in future proceedings, on the grounds of national importance. For the record, I point out that my daughter is a teacher in a school affected by the VAT on fees.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 701268 relating to VAT on independent school fees and business rates relief for independent schools.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. The petition is on an important subject and has gained over 114,000 signatures in two months. The lead petitioner, Hugh Beckinsale, is in the Public Gallery today with his daughter Amelia—someone who will be directly impacted by this policy decision. The petition has a straightforward ask of the Government: do not apply VAT to independent school fees or remove business rates relief.

The petition states that

“the Government needs to understand that not all independent school parents are wealthy, appreciate the benefits of independent schools and do better due diligence… We think this policy will split children from established friend networks, familiar environments and place the burden and cost on public schools.”

I will build on those points throughout the debate, but those succinct statements go straight to the heart of the issue. I commend the petition organisers on being so direct and clear.

I will turn to my own view on this issue. The topic is divisive; usually, that would cause a Government to approach it with caution, respect and careful deliberation, but this Labour Government have taken the opposite approach. They have been deliberately divisive, because their goal is not to improve education for all or even some young people. The decision was taken for purely political and ideological reasons. It is a direct result of the politics of envy and bitterness that extreme elements of the Labour party subscribe to and champion. It will do damage to young people, directly and indirectly, but the Government are not listening or even pretending to listen.

In truth, Labour Ministers do not care about the negative impact of the policy, and they have not considered what may happen as a result of it. As the Independent Schools Council has made clear, independent schools were shocked at the rushed nature of the introduction of the policy. In my discussions with representatives of independent schools, they have said that it has not been well thought through.

Before I turn to the negative impact that the policy will have, I will briefly mention my constituency in the Scottish Borders. We are lucky to have excellent schools in the state and independent sectors across the Scottish Borders. St Mary’s in Melrose is the only independent located in my constituency. However, many of my constituents send their children to independent schools in Edinburgh, East Lothian and across the border to Longridge Towers school near Berwick-upon-Tweed. St Mary’s school was founded in 1895, and has been providing an extraordinary educational experience for boys and girls between two and 13-years-old. All those young people will be directly affected by the policy, so I have received many letters and emails from concerned parents and teachers.

As a result of the lack of care when this policy was brought in, Labour has created serious issues that will impact pupils, parents and the public purse. First, the policy will burden parents with huge costs when bills are already high; they have already been taxed on the money that they earn, but they will now be forced to pay tax on it again. As the Independent Schools Council has stated, this policy is

“a blanket tax that assumes independent schools are a stereotype”.

It assumes, wrongly, that all parents who send their children to independent schools are immensely wealthy and can afford to pay more and more.

That was also noted by Matthew Dent, who is the public affairs and policy officer at the Independent Schools Council. He highlighted that the policy treats everyone who sends children to independent schools as wealthy, as well as the fact that it is simply not realistic to raise taxes by 20% with no warning. That is a good point: there are few other instances in which the Government would even consider introducing a 20 percentage-point tax rise in a single year.

The second issue that Labour has created is the impact on vulnerable pupils, who seem to have been neglected entirely. There seems to be no recognition from the Government that independent schools do not cater exclusively for wealthy children, but for young people who may need extra support. As the Independent Schools Council’s chief executive, Julie Robinson, has said, the policy will,

“cause huge disruption for thousands of families and children, especially those in low-fee faith schools, specialist arts education, single-sex schools, or those who need special needs support.”

The Scottish Council of Independent Schools has also endorsed that point, saying:

“Pupils with additional support needs will be affected the most by disruption to their education.”

The policy will also have an impact on people on the margin of being able to afford independent schooling for their children. The ISC claims that around a third of independent schoolchildren are not paying full fees; they are there because of special needs or academic excellence, not because of how rich their parents are. In fact, in most cases, money cannot buy a place at a top independent school—only merit can. As the SCIS highlighted, children in receipt of fee assistance will be the most at risk of being forced out of independent schools. It stated that the finances of those families have

“already been rigorously means tested and assessed as at the limit of what they can afford therefore we know they cannot pay any more. Being forced to move school will be particularly detrimental to children with additional support needs.”

None of that seems to have been properly, or even slightly, considered by this Labour Government, who charged ahead with this policy at breakneck speed. They did not sit down to have discussions about the impact that the policy would have on vulnerable children; they charged ahead, because this is an ideological and political move. It is not meant to help the country; it is intended to appease the left-wing fringe of the Labour party.

The third problem is the dreadful consequences on some young people who will be forced to move school. The policy could be devastating for those who will have to start again somewhere new. Students forced to move schools may be ripped out of a friend network or taken out of the stable set-up that they are used to. They may be forced, through absolutely no fault of their own, into a very different learning environment. Have the Government not made any assessment of the emotional and mental health damage that will cause to our young children, or do they just not care?

To make matters worse, that could happen to those young people at a critical moment in their education—for instance, in an exam year or when they are about to choose subjects that will influence their later career. How can it be fair to inflict that on young people? What have they done to deserve such upheaval? Why could this policy, if it had to be brought in, not have come through with a delayed introduction period so that parents could, at least, plan with a bit of warning?

It is clear that this policy is not an attack on wealthy parents but an attack on vulnerable children. As I have also already noted, many of those young people will have additional support needs and may not be well suited to a sudden change of environment. It is estimated that, in Scotland alone, 6,000 pupils will have their learning disrupted by being forced out of the sector. That is 6,000 young people in Scotland who will suffer for no good reason. What the Government are inflicting on young people is wrong, but they seem to neither listen nor care.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking with great passion about a subject that is of interest to him and to us all. He talked of many thousands of children facing displacement, but, in Edinburgh, I think the number of children being moved from the private sector to the state sector is somewhere between 50 and 60. Edinburgh has one of the largest private sectors in the UK, so where are the other thousands coming from?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Gentleman represents a part of Scotland where the proportion of young people going to independent schools is among the highest, if not the highest, in the country. I have had conversations with constituents and the teaching staff at a number of schools in his constituency, so I know how concerned they are. A number of parents are now considering taking their children out of the sector because they can no longer afford to pay the fees.

The hon. Gentleman knows from his discussions with those parents that they are not necessarily wealthy. During the last election, I spoke to parents who had made really tough choices about how they lead their lives to ensure that they can pay school fees—very often in schools in his constituency. They have made that choice about how they want their children to be brought up, and I think it is wrong that the Government are potentially taking that choice away or making it much more difficult for families to send children to the very good schools that he supposedly represents.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I represent a different part of Edinburgh, where one in four or five pupils goes to independent school. I have already received representations from parents who have had to take their children out of their schools and are concerned about where they can be placed in the city, given that the Labour council has already said that at least 15, and possibly 16, schools will be at capacity by the end of the decade even if there are no extra pupils.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Many young people, particularly in the city that she represents, go to schools in the independent sector, so the effect of this policy will be disproportionately higher in her city and the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), than in other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It is disappointing how dismissive Labour Members are of the concerns raised by the schools that the hon. Gentleman supposedly represents.

My fourth point, which really undermines Labour’s stated reasons for going ahead with this policy, is that there are huge potential costs to state schools arising from pupils moving out of independent schools. Every pupil who moves from an independent school to a state school will incur more cost to taxpayers. Those students did not cost the Government any money, but now their entire education will be met at a cost to the taxpayer.

The Government think that they have been clever by raising a tax to support public services, but they have not come to the obvious realisation that they are also raising the cost of providing public services. Just look at the number of students: there are 30,000 pupils in independent schools in Scotland alone. Survey data from the Independent Schools Council shows that, across the UK, 8,500 children have already left independent schools or did not start last September, and another 3,000 are expected to have left in January. The Independent Schools Council has stated that that is nearly four times the Government’s estimate for this year alone. The kicker is that the real test will come in September 2025, once this policy really hits parents hard. All those pupils will now have their education delivered by the state, and taxpayers will have to pay for it.

Now that I have outlined the great damage that the policy could do, let me turn to what the Labour Government have said in response and rebut some of their ridiculous claims. The Government stated in response to the petition that the policy

“will raise £1.8bn a year, helping to deliver the Government’s commitments for children in state schools.”

Except that may not be the case. It may not raise anywhere near that amount, because that is an estimate, not a hard fact. That claim also does not fully take into account the cost to the public finances of so many young people joining the state school system all at once. It is a big claim, and it does not really stack up.

[Dr Arthur]

It is important to remember that, although there is uncertainty with the number, and the revenue could be slightly lower or slightly higher—we do not know—the policy will none the less generate revenue. I spoke to the principal of an independent school in my constituency last week, and she outlined some of the challenges that she faces because of the policy, but the challenge that we face is that if we cancel the policy today—I know we cannot—the revenue that it generates will have to be found somewhere else. I ask the hon. Gentleman: where should we find that revenue? Perhaps we can find that money from public services in his constituency.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short.

[John Lamont]

The last Government increased revenue expenditure in our schools during our time in office. If fewer pupils go into the independent sector, the Labour Government will have fewer opportunities to charge VAT, so the policy will not raise the anticipated revenue. I am intrigued to know whether, in the discussions that the hon. Gentleman has had with the multiple independent schools in his constituency, a single one indicated any support for the policy. I am more than happy for him to intervene again if he can name one school in Edinburgh that supports the policy.

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for inviting my intervention. What I will say is that more than half of voters in Edinburgh voted for the policy. Does he think that they were wrong?

[John Lamont]

I would be amazed if the voters of Edinburgh endorse the policy in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. He should put that suggestion to some of the Facebook groups that support the directly affected Edinburgh parents—some of his constituents are directly affected by the policy—and see how many of their members say they support the policy. I suspect that very few will. If he paid any attention to those groups, he would know how much animosity there is towards the policy among parents in Edinburgh.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is quite possible that this ludicrous policy raises the square root of net zero once we knock off possibly 100,000 children not going to independent schools, the recovery of input costs from schools, the closure of schools and the reduction in bursaries because the schools cannot afford to give them?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member is absolutely right, and that leads me neatly to my next point. Let us look at what else the Labour Government have claimed. They said:

“Ending tax breaks for private schools was a tough but necessary decision that will secure additional funding to help deliver the Government’s commitments relating to education and young people.”

That supposed extra funding is far from guaranteed. The policy is unlikely to raise what has been stated, and it may well incur far greater costs to taxpayers than anticipated.

Let me state it plainly: nothing about this decision was necessary. This did not need to happen now or in this manner. At the very least, it could have been considered in detail, with all the repercussions weighed up. The Government estimate that in the long term, 37,000 pupils will leave or never enter the UK private school sector as a result of the VAT charge. That number may also prove to be nonsense; if it is, the Government’s entire basis for doing this will fall apart. If the number is higher, the cost to the public finances will be higher and less revenue will be raised. That is a potentially vicious double whammy for the Treasury, inflicted entirely by Labour’s own design.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the policy was well documented in the 2017, 2019 and 2024 Labour manifestos? People voting in the 2024 election were well aware of Labour’s policy.

[John Lamont]

If the hon. Lady engages with the parents and schools affected, as I am sure she has, she will know that one of their criticisms is the haste with which the policy was introduced, and the inability of schools and parents to make plans to adjust to this severe tax. I cannot think of another example of a Government trying to increase a tax by 20% in one go. One of the main reasons schools and parents are so concerned is the failure to engage, discuss and properly understand the impact, as well as the suggestion that only wealthy parents will be affected. The hon. Lady will know from her constituency that people are making tough choices about whether they send their young people to one of the local independent schools; they are making choices about how they lead their lives, and budgeting accordingly. It is very sad that the lives of young people will be disrupted as a consequence of the policy.

The Government also stated:

“Many of the resulting moves into state schools are expected to take place at natural transition points, such as when a child moves from primary to secondary school, or at the beginning of exam courses.”

That is pure assertion. It is made up. It is fantasy. The Government have no guarantees that that will be the case. There is no evidence to suggest that pupils will move only “at natural transition points”. Many parents will be unable to afford the extra bills and will have to move their children immediately, and not at a “natural” time. As I stated earlier, that could easily be at a critical moment in the child’s development.

The Government have said:

“These policies will not impact pupils with the most acute additional needs.”

That is plainly false. It is not even close to the truth. The Independent Schools Council, the Scottish Council of Independent Schools and individual headteachers all say the opposite. The Government’s policy will have an impact on vulnerable pupils with additional needs. It is simply shameful to claim otherwise, and does a huge disservice to the many parents out there doing their best for young people who just need a bit more help.

I conclude by thanking the petitioner again and all those who have signed this important petition. I look forward to hearing from other right hon. and hon. Members about their views of the petition. I believe that this reckless policy is being pursued for political and ideological reasons. It is not about what is best for the country; it is a move to placate the left wing of the Labour party. It will cost pupils, parents and taxpayers. It will leave both independent and state schools worse off. Labour promised change—well, here it is: change for the worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I am conscious of the time and that the House of Commons is about to vote. I will not detain hon. Members much longer.

I thank the petitioner for bringing forward this petition and the 115,000 people who bothered to sign it. I also thank all hon. Members who contributed to this important debate. I think it is telling that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members spoke against the Government’s policy regarding the VAT charge on school fees and the removal of business rates relief. The empty Government Benches are also very telling, although there were notable exceptions in the hon. Members who did come to try and defend their Labour Government’s policy. It was interesting to hear some of the caution that was also being expressed, however, most notably by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who gave a very important contribution.

I was struck by all the contributions about the impact that this policy will have on young people with additional needs, and the fact that it is not simply about wealthy families choosing to send their children to independent schools. There are lots of young people who go into the independent sector to get the educational support that they need to be able to achieve their full potential. Many of them will be deprived of that opportunity because of this policy. We also heard from a number of hon. Members about the impact on military families, which I had not previously considered.

I am deeply disappointed by the Government’s response, as I am sure all the petitioners are. There was no recognition that there might need to be a review of this policy in future and of how it will affect the independent sector and the opportunities of young people.

Again, I thank Hugh, the petitioner. One of the highlights of the day was meeting his daughter, Amelia, who is in the Gallery. I hope that she has enjoyed the debate and has found it interesting, although I suspect that the purchase of a House of Commons teddy bear before the debate will be the high point for her.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 701268 relating to VAT on independent school fees and business rates relief for independent schools.

Support for Pensioners

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson]

I am absolutely shocked, and I will come on to mention a few stories from my own constituents. They are very similar, and I think we are hearing these stories up and down the country.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is speaking very well about the challenges that older people are facing. I note that there are no Labour Back Benchers here to contribute to the debate. We have the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, so the payroll are here, but despite all the rhetoric during the general election campaign about supporting pensioners, Labour Back Benchers do not seem to be willing to stand up for them in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

My hon. Friend says no, but I was making a rhetorical statement.

Perhaps I am being unfair. Perhaps the Government care deeply about supporting pensioners and have been working tirelessly to help them. Well, there is another problem there, because a Government working tirelessly to support the most vulnerable pensioners would know exactly how many needed support and how many were missing. They would have a tracker counting down towards zero, and a working culture in the Department for Work and Pensions that meant it did not rest until everyone who needed support received it. Do they have that culture? No, they do not. The Government have already admitted that they have set no targets for pension credit sign-ups, and last month they could not even give me an estimate of how many pensioners below the pension credit threshold will not receive their winter fuel payment this winter. These are the most vulnerable people in our society. It is utterly shameful.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. He is rightly highlighting the weaknesses of the Labour Government in supporting pensioners. Does he agree that in many communities, the voluntary and third sector is now stepping forward to provide that support? In my area we have the Borders Older People’s Forum, the warm-ups in St Boswells village hall, the Hawick dementia café and multiple other examples of the voluntary and third sector stepping forward to provide the support that the Government should be providing.

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank my hon. Friend for making such an important point. Yes, the third sector has come forward to support, but what have the Government done to the third sector? They have applied national insurance increases and reduced the threshold, causing pain and suffering for the sector that our constituents now rely on because the Government have stepped away from their responsibilities.

The support that the Government have given pensioners to cover off the impacts of their decision to cut winter fuel payments is merely the thinnest of political spin. The most prominent such cover is the extension of the household support fund, which itself is an attempt to outsource the protection of vulnerable residents to already under-pressure local authorities that should be focused on delivering high-quality public services.

But it is worse than just outsourcing the problem, because a bit of examination showed that up to be the most disappointing example of the empty words our constituents hate. Despite the spin, the truth is that the household support fund simply has not been designed with pensioners in mind. The east of England receives £32.90 per pensioner. London receives double that: £66.73. When I first saw those numbers and the Government’s description of the household support fund as mitigation for pensioners, I wondered why London’s pensioners had been deemed so much more deserving of support, so I wrote to the Secretary of State. I got the simple answer that the fund is not intended to be targeted at pensioners. The Government have even admitted to me that they do not know how much of the household support fund went to pensioners this winter. Age UK estimates that typically, £1 in every £10 the household support fund pays out goes to pensioners.

What does all that mean for our pensioners? It means more pensioners in hospital—nearly 20,000 more in November and December 2024 than in the same months in 2023, a 6.6% increase. That is 6.6% more stress on our already overstretched health services, and it is nearly 20,000 more pensioners suffering in hospital and potentially suffering lasting ill health, because this Government, which some of them voted for in the belief that they would look after them, forced them to make a choice between heating and eating. It means tens of thousands more pensioners in poverty. Those are the Government’s own statistics.

Agricultural Property Relief

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ann Davies]

Of the clients that Eirian mentioned, five of them will not come under the tax liability because they have very small farms with off-farm income, they have transferred their farms following ill health, or they have significant debt that offsets the value of their farms.

It is clear that the assessments of the impact of the changes on working farms across the UK, on the wider economy and on the wider food supply chain are inadequate. The data that we have is deficient; it includes smallholdings and non-working farms. Data based on the basic payment scheme or on agricultural output would provide a fairer representation of the situation for genuine farmers.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is speaking remarkably well about the challenges that this Government policy will create for farmers in Wales, in Scotland and across the UK. Research by Scottish Land and Estates shows that the average UK farm size is 217 acres and the average agricultural land value in Great Britain is £8,200 per acre, which means that the average working farm in the UK is worth about £1.8 million. Does that not show the flaw in the Government’s argument? This policy is not attacking the richest landowners; it is attacking working farms the length and breadth of the UK.

[Ann Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I totally agree. Indeed, I will give further details about that issue later in my speech.

It is also clear that industry experts were not consulted on the changes prior to the announcement, even though consultation could have led to a fairer and more appropriate solution that is not detrimental to family farms or the wider industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I do not think we have undertaken that assessment. Of course, a benefit of being part of the United Kingdom is the subsequent extra money per head that is given through the Barnett formula, and the Scottish Government can decide what to do with that. I am sure they will be carefully costing their independence things, or that sort of financial support will simply not be there.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

6. What progress is being made by the work of armed forces champions in jobcentres.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

10. What progress is being made by the work of armed forces champions in jobcentres.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

In April 2021, we updated the offer in our jobcentres, boosting our network of armed forces champions to 50, supported by 11 area leads. They are focused on providing key support to our veterans and other members of the armed forces community to ensure that their talents and abilities are recognised and that they can move quickly on to their next step. I saw that in action on Thursday at the military careers fair in Aldershot with the Veterans Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty).

[John Lamont]

As the Minister will know, our veterans have particular skills and needs. Can she confirm that veterans in my constituency in the Scottish Borders, whether they attend a jobcentre in Hawick, Galashiels or Eyemouth, will be able to access the support offered by their district armed forces champion?

[Mims Davies]

Yes, I can confirm that they will. The great work that is being done by our DWP armed forces champions in my hon. Friend’s constituency is playing out, for example, in how the local champion from High Riggs jobcentre has already been working with the local council to secure bus passes for veterans, alongside providing veterans with direct employment support.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome the £1.6 million that has been given to her local council specifically for targeted support through the household support fund. I am sure she will be as keen as I am to ensure that people seeking work in her constituency get the benefit of the extra work coach support. We have invested in that right across the country and we will continue to do so.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

3. What plans she has to work with employers and skills providers at a local level to help more jobseekers into work.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

5. What plans she has to work with employers and skills providers at a local level to help more jobseekers into work.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

Through our place-based approach, the DWP is working closely with employers, skills providers and other Departments to support people into work. Our jobcentres connect directly with local employers to discuss their recruitment needs and to offer tailored advice and support to help fill vacancies. This includes offering work experience opportunities and increasing the number of sector-based work academy programme places available.

[John Lamont]

I am delighted that more than 100 young people in the Scottish Borders have already started work through the kickstart scheme. What can the Government do to encourage employers to keep people on after the scheme ends?

[Mims Davies]

I am delighted, too. I am pleased to announce that more than 112,000 kickstart jobs have been started by young people across the UK. Many young people have found permanent jobs through kickstart, and we continue to work closely with employers to help young people find those long-term employment opportunities. We have helped employers to move kickstart participants into apprenticeships more easily by working with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure employers receive the incentive payments for doing so.

Pension Schemes (Conversion of Guaranteed Minimum Pensions) Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 26th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Ferrier]

The hon. Member is spot on; the change is well overdue. I will come to that, and I am sure that the Minister will answer that point too. I think the pension schemes have found some difficulties; as I say, I will come to that.

It is important to be clear that no one will have money taken away from them as a result of the Bill when pensions are equalised. If it turns out that someone is entitled to more guaranteed minimum pension than they would be entitled to if they were the opposite sex, nothing happens; that advantage is not taken away. The Bill seeks only to increase pension income for those already losing out because of their sex due to the nuances of having a guaranteed minimum pension. It is also important to be clear that this is not about giving anyone extra pension that they are not entitled to; it is simply about making sure that no one loses out on pension income as a result of their sex.

If one person has a smaller guaranteed minimum pension than another purely because the first person is male and the second female, their overall pension entitlement needs to be corrected. However, correcting people’s pensions in this way is proving a very slow process, as the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) said. The Department for Work and Pensions, working with the pensions industry, tried to cut through the complexity by offering a methodology, set out in guidance, for pension schemes to use. The methodology involved converting the guaranteed minimum pension into what I will call normal scheme benefits, using existing legislation already on the statute book.

The industry agrees that this is a sensible approach, but has pointed out that the legislation supporting the conversion process contains some uncertainties that it believes will expose it to legal risk and potential accusations of not equalising correctly. For example, the way survivor benefits are treated in the conversion legislation needs to be clarified. The industry has pointed out that legal requirements for survivor benefits when guaranteed minimum pensions are converted are not sufficiently clear. Survivor benefits are the benefits paid out to a scheme member’s widow, widower or surviving civil partner when the member passes away, and are therefore extremely important.

Equalising someone’s pension to take account of the differences that arise because they had a guaranteed minimum pension is, as I have said, very important, but schemes need clarity and legal certainty before they are able to proceed with this essential process. That is what the measures in my Bill seek to provide. Similarly, before converting guaranteed minimum pensions, pension schemes are required to get the consent of the sponsoring employer that finds the scheme. That sounds entirely reasonable, since after all the sponsoring employer has invested a lot of money in the scheme to ensure that its employees have a decent retirement income.

Unfortunately, that is not as straightforward as we might expect because the current legislation does not cover all situations, such as where the original sponsoring employer is no longer in business. As a result of this lack of clarity in the legislation, some pension schemes have held off equalising for these effects of guaranteed minimum pensions. This Bill will help with that by rectifying those uncertainties and clarifying the legislation that schemes will use if they follow the methodology set out in the Department for Work and Pensions guidance.

I should make it clear to the House at this point that the Bill does not impose any new costs or requirements on occupational pension schemes or their sponsoring employers. Affected occupational schemes have known that they need to equalise pensions for the effect of guaranteed minimum pension for many years and should have been planning accordingly. The Bill will simply help pension schemes to do exactly what they need to do to stop people losing out.

I have engaged with representatives from the pensions industry, who welcome the provisions. The industry has long lobbied for the clarifications in this Bill to be made. I should hope that all here recognise the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) sitting opposite me today; I am delighted to say that the Government have decided to support my Bill. It is good to be working with the Government to make things easier for pension schemes.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward this Bill. She is speaking extremely well on a very technical area of pensions law. On the devolution point, she will know that Stormont has agreed to deal with the same issue, which is devolved to Stormont, through this Bill. Does she agree that that is a good example of where this Parliament and the devolved Parliaments can work together to achieve a desired positive outcome?

[Margaret Ferrier]

I thank the hon. Member; I am not sure I agree wholeheartedly with all his intervention, but the Bill extends to England, Wales and Scotland, and Northern Ireland, as he mentioned, has asked to be covered by it as well. This particular Bill extends to the whole UK and I am happy that it includes Scotland as well, unlike the Bill of the right hon. Member for North Somerset, which only covers England. As I said, it is good to be working with the Government to make things easier for pension schemes in fulfilling their obligations to their members and to ensure that benefits are paid correctly to members of occupational pension schemes.

I will not take up a lot of time, because the hon. Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) is looking to give his Bill a Second Reading as well. But before I finish, there are quite a number of people on the DWP team who I would like to thank as they have helped me considerably: Narinder Clarke, Anna Smith-Spark, Gareth Thomas, Katy Marcus, Maria Burgess and David Brown. Of course I also thank my parliamentary assistant Kim Glendenning, who has helped me considerably in pulling all this together, the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association and the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

When she plans to publish the findings of the Government’s review announced in July 2019 of how the welfare system supports people who are terminally ill.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

When she plans to publish the findings of the Government’s review announced in July 2019 of how the welfare system supports people who are terminally ill.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)]

The evaluation remains a priority for the Department. We have made good progress and expect to be able to provide an update on the outcome of the evaluation shortly.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Member for setting out powerfully the torment and challenges that MND sufferers face; he has been a champion of their cause in Parliament. I am grateful for the part that the Motor Neurone Disease Association, Hospice UK, Macmillan, Marie Curie, Sue Ryder, the national nurse consultant group and others have played in the evaluation. The Secretary of State and I are passionate about making changes: it will not be the status quo. Covid-19 caused a delay to the final part of the consultation with the medical professionals, but we will bring forward a change shortly.

[John Lamont]

I know that the Minister will be aware that the benefits awarded under the special rules for terminal illness last for three years, but on behalf of my constituent Doddie Weir, the former Scotland rugby player, who has been campaigning on the issue, will my hon. Friend consider scrapping the three-year limit on awards under the special rules to avoid distressing situations for those suffering with MND and other terminal illnesses?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this. I know that he has campaigned hard on the matter. We are reviewing all areas. The key three themes are: the six months and not having the status quo; improving consistency; and raising awareness to ensure that all those who will benefit from the special rules know what is available.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to ensure that people who cannot work at home are able to work safely at their place of work during the covid-19 outbreak.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to ensure that people who cannot work at home are able to work safely at their place of work during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies) [V]]

The Health and Safety Executive is involved in safer workplaces and, across Government, this work is being led by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The DWP has put a number of measures in place itself. We have closed jobcentres to the public; suspended appointments, except in exceptional circumstances; introduced social distancing, extensive communications and a route for staff to raise concerns; and deployed up to 15,000 laptops to allow people to work at home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

As the Prime Minister announced yesterday, those who can return to work safely should do so, and I do encourage all employers and employees to use the safety at work guides due to be published later this week to help, support and inform decisions about safety in the workplace. Colleagues will have an opportunity to hear more from the Prime Minister when he makes his statement to the House shortly.

[John Lamont [V]]

Many employers and employees in my constituency in the Scottish borders are very keen to go back to work. They want to do so as safely as possible, so could the Minister outline what the Government are doing to foster good relations between employees and employers to allow that to happen, and also to allow them to adjust to the new normal way of working?

[Mims Davies [V]]

As I said previously, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is leading the way on safer workplaces. There are lots of opportunities to build relationships between employers, employees and trade unions as we open up the economy, and the guidelines will be published in due course. The Health and Safety Executive is an arms-length body of the DWP. It has been actively involved in each of the work strands in the sectors. Our Department takes an interest in recruitment, helping to build confidence so claimants can return to work or take up new employment.

Devolution of Welfare

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered devolution of welfare.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating this debate and to my colleagues who are here to participate. We are of course meant to be in our constituencies this week, but events have overtaken us, so I am pleased that we are able to use our time in Westminster to discuss an issue that affects many of the people whom we represent. Indeed, the devolution of welfare is set to impact more than 1 million people in Scotland. That is why it is so important that the process is got right.

I want to make it crystal clear that I enthusiastically support the devolution of the welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act 2016 fulfilled a promise made by the United Kingdom Government—the so-called vow—that voting to remain part of the United Kingdom, as Scots did so overwhelmingly in 2014, would not mean an end to devolution. The Conservative Government established the cross-party Smith commission to look at what should be devolved. The Conservative Government then passed the 2016 Act, which devolved a significant tranche of welfare powers, and my Scottish Conservative colleagues in Holyrood voted for the Bill that has paved the way for Scottish Ministers to take over the powers.

No one can question this Government’s or the Conservative party’s commitment to this process. Devolution of welfare allows the Scottish Parliament to try different approaches, to learn from and build on experiences in other parts of the United Kingdom and to deliver welfare more locally in a way that is more tailored to Scottish needs. That is a good thing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman refers to how things work in other parts of the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland Assembly is not functioning at the moment as it should be, but when it was, we had a very good relationship with the Conservative party and Government that enabled us to bring in some changes in relation to the Department for Work and Pensions that helped us in Northern Ireland. That involved taking some money out of our block grant. It meant that we were able to help the more vulnerable people. We have very large numbers of disabled people who are in receipt of benefit, whether it be disability living allowance or personal independence payments, across Northern Ireland. A relationship between the Government—our Government, the Conservative Government—and the devolved Administrations is the way forward, and the way to make things happen.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the importance of different Governments within the United Kingdom working together. Ultimately, and in this policy area in particular, we are helping some of the most vulnerable people in society, and it is imperative that we get it right. That is why this debate is so important.

I think it a good thing that more control over welfare is coming to Scotland, but it is clearly a challenge, and it is obvious that the Scottish National party Government in Scotland have significantly underestimated the challenge. Under the 2016 Act, 11 DWP benefits are being devolved to Scotland. The power to legislate for that has already been transferred. On 1 April next year, the Scottish Government are due to gain “executive competence”, which is essentially administrative control over the benefits. Those are significant new powers. Launching Social Security Scotland, the First Minister described it as an “historic moment”.

Although some of the benefits to be devolved are less substantial—they are of course hugely important to those who receive them—significant benefits will be taken on by the Scottish Government. They include PIP, carer’s allowance and DLA and, as a package, they account for about £3 billion, or just over 15% of total social security spending in Scotland.

The Department for Work and Pensions has been working with the Scottish Government to allow the change to take place. The Scottish Government have previously promised that they will be fully delivering these benefits by the end of the Scottish Parliament’s current term, which ends in 2021. In fact, the Scottish Government previously indicated that they hoped to complete the process by 2020, so the timetable had already slipped slightly. Given that the Scotland Act was introduced in this place in May 2015, the Scottish Government could have got ahead of the game and begun preparing for this process much earlier than they did.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I compliment my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He has mentioned the investment that the DWP has already made in helping the Scottish Government to prepare to assume the devolved powers for these benefits. Does he know how much that has cost the DWP in addition to its usual expenses?

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I am going to come on to that shortly. Clearly, there is a cost implication of the Scottish Government’s failure to keep to the timetable that they have anticipated.

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this incredibly important debate to this place. Does he agree that, in fact, the blame lies firmly at the door of the SNP Scottish Government? I asked a question in the Chamber, and have met the Secretary of State about this matter as well. The DWP did all it possibly could to ensure the Scottish Government were ready to take on these powers. The blame lies firmly at their door, because this UK Government have done everything they possibly can.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; I am going to expand on that a little further. Despite all the rhetoric we hear from the SNP about taking on these powers and many others, it has absolutely failed to fulfil those promises on the delivery of welfare.

By the end of February, the Scottish Government announced that they expected it to take until at least 2024 before this process would be completed. They also said they would not be taking on competence for the severe disablement allowance, instead leaving that controlled by the Department for Work and Pensions indefinitely. The issue is important for this place, because these powers were due to be devolved. It therefore now falls on the Department for Work and Pensions to step in and ensure that the people of Scotland—our constituents—receive the support they need.

All of this is perhaps understandable. Delivering a welfare system is a complex matter that we need to get right. I acknowledge that the UK Government have needed to delay the roll-out of universal credit, which is a much more complex undertaking. The SNP has spent the past decade criticising the UK Government for their welfare policies and demanding these powers, so the people of Scotland expected the Scottish Government to be keen to take them on as quickly as possible. Instead, it will take the Scottish Government nine years to build a social security system, despite one of the benefits being handed back to the Department for Work and Pensions here at Westminster. This is from a party that tried to con the voters of Scotland by saying that they could set up an entire independent country, with all the apparatus that this would have entailed, in just 18 months. This is from a party that is demanding the devolution of all welfare powers to Scotland, as well as a whole range of other powers.

There is not really any disagreement about why this has happened. I am sure the Minister will be tactful in his closing remarks, because the Department for Work and Pensions wants this process to be done properly and these powers to be devolved in a smooth way. However, the fact remains that these delays are entirely the fault of the Scottish Government and their failure to build capacity to deliver a new social security agency.

Department for Work and Pensions officials have been working hard to devolve these powers since the Scotland Act 2016 was passed. Indeed, they were working towards the 2021 timetable right up until the delay was announced by the Scottish Government. There had been warning signs long before, which should have made the Scottish Government think they had to improve progress. Last year, Audit Scotland warned that Scottish Ministers had not done their homework and had no idea how achievable the plans for Social Security Scotland were. It is already costing more than the Scottish Government thought it would, and plans for local benefits agencies are well behind schedule. It is very clear that the Scottish Government underestimated how complex and expensive it is to deliver a social security system, which is why they have caused these delays.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I hope he agrees that it is very unfortunate that SNP Members have chosen to laugh at elements of what he is saying about an extremely serious issue, rather than focus on the debate. He mentioned the Audit Scotland report. Does he agree that it is wrong of the SNP to claim that it was prepared for this, when Audit Scotland said it had not even worked out how much a new benefits system would cost?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is quite telling that there are only three SNP Members here, given the number of Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour party Members. I sense that on this issue, they feel a deep sense of embarrassment about how their Scottish Government colleagues have delivered. They are not bobbing up to make interventions to challenge the points that are being made; instead, they sit and they laugh. The reality is that it is our constituents, the people of Scotland, who are being let down by this Scottish Government failing to deliver.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Lamont]

I just want to make a bit more progress. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Fine, on you go.

[Neil Gray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and commend him on securing this debate, as it will give us an opportunity to set out the positive things that the Scottish Government are doing on social security, as I will when I make my speech. The hon. Gentleman is laying all the blame at the Scottish Government’s door. Can he advise the Chamber on how many occasions the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has met with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People in Scotland, or with the joint ministerial committee, and how often those meetings have been cancelled as a result of the Department for Work and Pensions’ failure to engage?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Gentleman is doing his best to try to justify this, but the Secretary of State for Scotland regularly meets officials from the Scottish Government about the devolution of welfare powers.

[Neil Gray]

Officials.

[John Lamont]

The Secretary of State and other Ministers in this Government have been working hard, because we recognise how important the continuation of welfare support is to our constituents and the people of Scotland, and that the Scottish Government have failed to deliver as they have promised. These delays are of huge concern to our constituents, because they raise doubt about the Scottish Government’s ability to take on functions of the Department for Work and Pensions and to deliver benefits in Scotland. People are looking at those delays and are rightly asking whether the Scottish Government are up to the job.

Although the Department for Work and Pensions has stepped in to ensure that benefits will be paid notwithstanding the delay, how long can that go on for? It is far from satisfactory for the DWP and Scottish Government to be working to a presumption that social security will be devolved by 2021, only for the Scottish Government to suddenly announce a three-year delay. Perhaps in his closing remarks, the Minister could provide some clarity about whether his Department was made aware of the new timetable, and whether any further delays are anticipated.

[Neil Gray]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. Does he acknowledge the comments that have been made by Inclusion Scotland and the Scottish Commission for Learning Disability about the timetable for the delivery of Scottish social security powers? Given that those organisations speak for the people who will rely on those powers being delivered effectively, why is the hon. Gentleman so willing to challenge what they have said in welcoming the timetable set out by the Scottish Government?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that point, but it is astonishing—it is a Scottish Government timetable that has slipped. The hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in Edinburgh—the Scottish Government, the SNP—said that they would try to put the new welfare system in place by the end of 2020. That deadline then became 2021, and then became 2024. It is an absolute failure by the SNP Scottish Government to deliver and match their promises, and I think supporters of Scotland will judge them when the next election comes.

In the event of any further delays, I am confident that the DWP stands ready to step in, but perhaps the Minister could provide my constituents with some reassurances that that will be the case. There are also questions about the additional cost of these delays. Given that the Scottish Government are meant to be taking on these powers, and are spending considerable money on setting up Social Security Scotland, any extra spending by the DWP is an additional, duplicate cost to the public purse. The welfare system is crucial to the life of many of our constituents, and it is vital that these powers are devolved in an orderly fashion so that nobody falls through the cracks. It is important that a new timetable is developed so that the Scottish Government get ready to take on these powers, and there are no further unexpected delays.

One issue that is unique to my constituency, I think, is about the devolution of cold weather payments. In the Scottish borders, the TD12 and TD15 postcodes include homes on either side of the border. For the purposes of cold weather payments, other postcodes in Northumberland use a weather station in Scotland. Some properties will get their cold weather payment from the Department for Work and Pensions, while others in the same postcode should get theirs from Social Security Scotland. If cold weather payments are eventually to be taken on by the Scottish Government, could the Minister confirm whether there have been any discussions about how those payments will be delivered where postcodes are split across the border?

One final issue concerns other welfare powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament by the Scotland Act 2016. As well as delays to taking on devolved benefits, the Scottish Government seem less than enthusiastic about accepting these powers. The Scotland Act devolves the ability to top up reserved benefits, provide short-term payments and create new non-reserved benefits. UK Ministers have repeatedly made their view clear that these powers allow the Scottish Government to compensate women affected by the equalisation of the state pension age. The Scottish Government do not often accuse the UK Government of giving powers away, so the fact that UK Ministers say that these powers have been devolved is a compelling reason to believe this to be the case.

A more detailed look at the legislation clearly shows that the Scottish Government could act in three ways. First, section 24 provides the Scottish Government with the ability to top up pensions and, therefore, compensate women affected by this change once they reach the new pension age. This may not be an ideal solution; none the less, the Scottish Government accept it as possible.

Secondly, section 26 allows for payments to provide help with short term needs if payment is required “to avoid a risk” to the person’s wellbeing. The Scottish Government claim this requires each case to be individually assessed, but this is simply not true. The legislation allows payment merely to avoid a risk of harm. That is a low threshold. If the Scottish Government’s language about the impact of these changes is accurate, the threshold is clearly met.

Thirdly, section 28 allows the Scottish Government to create new non-reserved benefits, except to provide a pension or provide assistance merely by old age. This does not prevent the Scottish Government from taking action, because compensating Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign women before they reach pension age does not amount to a pension nor to assistance due to old age, which, in the context, clearly means the state pension age.

A letter from the then Minister for Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), in 2017 made the Scottish Government aware of this point. My hon. Friend wrote about section 28:

“Whilst this power cannot be used to provide pensions to people who qualify by reason of old age, many of those affected by changes to the state pension age will not have reached state pension age. As a result, this broad power does offer the Scottish Government the possibility of introducing financial support to help this group.”

Clearly, this is another way in which the Scottish Government could step in but fail to do so.

I have huge sympathy for the women affected by this change and I have been working with a number of them in my constituency to help them manage the process. However, I have no time for the SNP’s position on this matter, which is completely inconsistent. The SNP might not want to take action to compensate these women; that would be a perfectly legitimate position. The SNP might want to take action but feel it would be too costly; again, that is an entirely legitimate position. It is not legitimate to try and make political capital out of a group of women who clearly feel wronged, and mislead them about the Scottish Government’s ability to help.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very eloquent argument as to why the Scottish Government can pick up the WASPI problem, but this matter also rests with the Government. In his view, is the Government’s decision not to compensate the WASPI women legitimate or is it democratic?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I support equalisation of pension age. This is how devolution works. Just as we have different policies on prescription charges and university tuition in Scotland, potentially, you could have a different policy in Scotland about how women of a certain age are supported. I support the UK Government’s position, but there are options open to the Scottish Government to take a different approach. However, they are exploiting these women for party political purposes and for no other reason.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman has been making great play of the fact that he has the border near his constituency. Why does he believe that women south of that border do not deserve to be compensated because of his Government?

[John Lamont]

I support the equalisation of the pension age. It is quite astonishing for the hon. Lady to almost deny the devolution settlement. This is how devolution works. Different parts of the United Kingdom can pursue different policy objectives. The hon. Lady is almost arguing for the abolition of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government’s ability to take different decisions and pursue different policy objectives. Why not accept that they have the power and ability to take action to compensate those women and support the Scottish Government in taking a different approach if they choose to do so?

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Given that the hon. Gentleman is advocating his support for 1950s-born women, is he in favour of the UK Government’s pension credit changes, which will go through in May, which are being referred to by WASPI women as a toy boy tax?

[John Lamont]

I support the changes. I have supported a number of my constituents. As I have said, the equalisation of the pension age is right. People are living to be older, and it is right that men and women are entitled to their pension at the same age. This is another example of the Scottish Government’s failure to take action when it has the power to do so. Despite all the rhetoric demanding more powers, they have an inability to use those powers.

Devolution of welfare by this Conservative Government has made the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that the Scottish Government have found taking on those powers such a challenge. The latest delay is surprising, given the SNP’s criticism of the system they are inheriting. It is important that the Department for Work and Pensions continues to do all that it can to ensure the orderly transfer of welfare powers and to ensure that the recipients—the people of Scotland; our constituents—continue to receive the support they need.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

That is an interesting intervention. I admit I am not an expert on social security, and I would not claim to be. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the intervention. However, is it not interesting that, whereas the Scottish National party social security spokesperson was telling everyone in 2014 that an entirely new state could be set up in 18 months, the matters we are discussing have been delayed not twice but three times, in 2016, 2018 and 2019? That was with respect to benefits that the SNP claimed had to be in the Bill and had to be devolved immediately, and that it would be able to deal with.

[John Lamont]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I will not, because the Chair has said we have only five minutes.

I wanted to mention the WASPI issue. The WASPI women in my constituency are beside themselves that the issue has not been resolved. Both parties, and both the Scottish and UK Governments, are culpable of robbing WASPI women of the pensions they have worked hard for. Scotland could use the powers at its disposal to take a different course, but its Government refuse to do so, because they would rather create grievance than deal with the issue.

It is important that the people of Scotland know we have an inhumane welfare system across the UK at the moment. Scotland can make a different choice and create its own welfare system. The UK Government have created a situation that means Scotland has the ability to do something different. The SNP Government of Scotland refuse to do so. They have delayed it until 2024—eight years after the passage of the 2016 Act. At the same time, disabled people and WASPI women in Scotland, in particular, are suffering. The SNP Government should hang their head in shame.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray]

That is not actually true, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. We have been campaigning very hard in Westminster for the problem faced by the WASPI women to be sorted across the United Kingdom. He constantly talks about not having any differences between people in Livingston and people in Liverpool; we are in agreement on that. This issue should be sorted out for those women across the United Kingdom, and his ire should be directed at the Minister to resolve the situation.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) asked why there was a delay. Again, we have been working hard to deliver the system as quickly and safely as possible, but sadly there has intransigence on the part of DWP Ministers. There has been good engagement—[Interruption.] No, it is not nonsense. There has been a good level of engagement at official level, but successive Secretaries of State have missed joint ministerial working group meetings and refused to allow the Scottish Government to utilise some of their powers, such as separate payments, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There are areas where we are looking to make changes and develop new policy, but sadly the DWP is putting roadblocks in the way of that progress.

The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who to his credit has been critical of this Government on the roll-out of universal credit, has not quite taken his concerns in that area to their logical conclusion when it comes to the safe delivery of a new devolved system. We have learned from the shambles of the poverty-inducing roll-out of universal credit and the problems with personal independence payments, and we are determined to deliver the new system safely. It benefits and supports the people of Scotland.

[John Lamont]

Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) secured a debate on the delivery of welfare. In criticising that debate, the hon. Gentleman said:

“Of course, the Scottish Government are proceeding quite nicely as they build the new Scottish social security agency.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2018; Vol. 638, c. 119WH.]

Does he stand by his comments in last year’s debate?

[Neil Gray]

Yes, I do. The hon. Gentleman is a former Member of the Holyrood Parliament, so he knows how quickly legislation can progress through Parliament, and he knows the steps that need to go through in order—[Interruption.] I will not be shouted down. The hon. Gentleman knows how legislation goes through Holyrood, and knows that these things take time. Sadly, we are now, thanks to the intransigence of DWP Ministers, in a position whereby certain things are being delayed. I go back to the point that the hon. Gentleman had never mentioned universal credit and had mentioned PIP once before today’s debate. I am very surprised at that. He does not seem to have a problem with the delay—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed. It is telling that we had only one substantive speech from the Nationalist benches; the other 34 SNP Members obviously find it very uncomfortable. I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), but it is telling how much time he spent in preparing for this debate counting off how often I have spoken in this place and how many words I have mentioned; never mind trying to defend the Scottish Government’s record. It is more about a social media clip than anything else. The Scottish Government are always pleading for more powers and control over welfare, but it has taken them nine years to get 15% of welfare, so it would take 60 years for them to get full control over the welfare budget.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Our job is to ensure that our constituents—the people of Scotland—are getting the welfare support that they deserve, and I am pleased that the UK Government are taking action to deal with the failures of the Scottish Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered devolution of welfare.

Supporting Disabled People to Work

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

The NAO welcomes the fact that we are offering precise and tailored support, and that we are using innovative methods and a test and learn programme. There is no global definition: there is nothing that we can take off the shelf and say “This will work for everyone.” There is no one size fits all. Everyone is an individual, and everyone has individual challenges and opportunities.

We are rightly investing in that innovative research, and will use our findings to share best practice and roll it out. We welcome the fact that the number of disabled people in work has risen by more than 930,000 in the last five years. I am thrilled to hear of the success of the hon. Lady’s local initiative, and I will certainly suggest to the Department a potential future visit.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I was delighted to attend a Disability Confident event in one of my local jobcentres in Galashiels, whose staff do a tremendous amount to get disabled people back into work. Can the Minister confirm that the financial support that disabled people currently receive is more generous than the support that they received under the system that we inherited?

[Justin Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is another champion in his constituency, ensuring that disabled residents have the maximum opportunity that so many of us take for granted. We are spending £10 billion more in real terms on disability benefits than we were in 2010, and that is making a difference to some of the most vulnerable people in society.