Women’s State Pension Age
Kenny MacAskill Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
With great respect to the hon. Lady, her question perfectly exemplifies why it is important to look at the detail of the report. She refers to the ombudsman recommending the full level 6 compensation, but it is actually level 4, the range between £1,000 and £2,950. I am afraid that that piece of information was simply inaccurate.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Sadly, we have had a reprise of known facts, not the resolution of a manifest wrong. Governments frequently have to address the faults and failings of their predecessors, of whatever political hue. That is called the responsibility of being in office and it is part of the privilege of governing. Equally, we have to remember that when there is an institutional failure that goes across political parties and Government institutions, we have independent bodies, such as an ombudsman, to address it. In those circumstances, will the Minister first of all accept that there has been a manifest wrong and injustice, and secondly, will he commit that he will not, under any circumstances, seek to undermine the decision of the ombudsman or the direction of travel he has embarked upon?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is a very specific purpose for an ombudsman, as indeed there is for this ombudsman. What I think is unreasonable is to take the step in logic from that to saying that one should just simply, within a matter of hours, stand up and accept everything the ombudsman has put forward. What we have quite rightly said, and what I am saying at the Dispatch Box today, is that we will consider these matters, the findings, the circumstances and so on in very great detail, in order to come to the appropriate decision.
State Pension Changes: Women
Kenny MacAskill Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I too congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on a very eloquent speech putting forward this case.
The two aspects I wish to concentrate on are injustice and restitution. There is a manifest injustice. Others have mentioned similar injustices that have taken place in our society: Horizon, which is ongoing, the blood scandal, Windrush and others. They may be down to individual, corporate or departmental error. In many instances, they may require criminal proceedings, or disciplinary action may be required—but equally, as a society, we need to resolve that manifest injustice. That is why we have schemes such as the criminal injuries compensation scheme. We live as a society, and a sin against one is a sin against all. The state requires to ensure that those who suffer are compensated, especially when it is because of a Government Department.
That takes us to restitution. The damage inflicted upon these women is not simply that which can be quantified, because there is also an unquantifiable loss. Therefore, the restitution must take some account of the pain and suffering. When we grow up and move from childhood to the world of work, our dreams and aspirations may often not be fulfilled—but those dreams exist. Similarly, as people reach an age where they prepare for retirement, many have dreams about what they wish to do.
Some may not wish to retire, and that is perfectly legitimate, but others feel that they have contributed their bit and they wish to have some time of their own, doing what they want. That might simply be looking after grandchildren or tending the garden; they might wish to sail around the world or write a novel—that is a matter for them. But they have those dreams that they were entitled to receive.
The problem is that the changes that were made and the injustice inflicted upon those people have taken those dreams away. Many have not been able to look after the grandchildren or tend the garden as they wished, never mind any of the other, less prosaic things I suggested, because they have required to keep body and soul together.
In damages claims in Scotland we have quantifiable loss, but we also have something termed solatium, which is for the pain and suffering inflicted on and sustained by the individual. That is very hard to quantify—one cannot say that they have not been given a certain level of benefit or that they have had to pay out some amount in some other aspect—but there must be some recognition that these women’s dreams were taken away in many instances, and that they have not simply suffered a financial injustice, but been denied the ability to do what they wanted, prepared and should have been entitled to do.
Offshore Wind Farms: Health and Safety
Kenny MacAskill Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
A just transition was proclaimed when COP26 was held in Glasgow in 2021. While that global jamboree may have underwhelmed in so many respects, it was at the forefront in one aspect, for as we transition from fossil fuels to renewables, not just countries but businesses, communities and workers were to be supported. Entire industries require to be run down or forsaken and decent jobs given up, even lifelong careers; however, financial support was to be given to assist nations in that journey. As for workers, assurances were made that in the transition to net zero, they would be protected and long-held rights would be assured—justice for workers, as well as for our planet.
Those assurances were echoed outwith the global gathering, endorsed by the UK Government—they have since been championed by them in the green jobs taskforce—and chorused by the Scottish Government in their just transition commission. The rhetoric has been fairness and equity for those whose work would require to change. In Scotland and in the UK as a whole, the sector most affected is in the North sea. Though extraction of oil and gas is still required, we are on a journey to decarbonise and to transition to renewables; it is a transition, but it must be a just one. That sector has provided huge wealth and benefit to our society, and many who worked hard in those difficult and often dangerous conditions are now moving into renewables. Where once it was oil and gas, it is now becoming wind, wave and tidal—let us not forget that we recently had a Prime Minister who championed the UK as the Saudi Arabia of wind. It is a move that matters for our nations and will create wealth, as well as provide hope for our planet.
However, recent events in the North sea have revealed that while there is a transition in the economy, there is no just transition for those working in that new and growing sector—primarily in the maritime sector, where minimum wage law does not apply consistently and immigration law is used as a crude instrument to profit from seafarer exploitation. That, though, is a debate for another day. Tonight, I want to raise the issue of employment rights, especially the effectiveness of health and safety legislation that is too easily avoided. The lack of consistent and effective offshore safety legislation has been brought to light by a recent tragedy. We must hope that from that sorrow there will come some solace, with the existing legislative gap being remedied.
That legislative gap affects hundreds if not thousands of workers in the offshore energy supply chain, sailing out of not just existing offshore hubs such as Aberdeen or Dundee but Eyemouth, Montrose, Fraserburgh, Wick, Buckie, and other Scottish ports involved in delivering a successful offshore wind industry. It also affects those in England servicing energy installations in the North sea from Humberside, Tyneside, Teesside or East Anglia, along with those who will be embarking from Holyhead, Milford Haven, Mostyn and other ports in Wales. At present, the framework of statutory employment and seafarer rights on which that workforce will depend for their health and safety is not fit for purpose. A just transition was promised, and a just transition there must be for our maritime and offshore workers, as well as our planet.
Let me detail the tragedy which brought those failures to light. On Sunday 22 January, a man went missing from Valaris 121, a mobile offshore drilling unit being towed to Dundee and located some 98 miles from Aberdeen. Police Scotland investigated and while satisfied that no criminal investigation was required, had concerns regarding wider health and safety issues, which they referred to the Health and Safety Executive. This is something that the HSE would not normally investigate. That it did so here is perhaps indicative of the concerns that the police had raised, for it is not the same as an industrial accident on land. Neither is it similar to that on an oil or gas rig on the UK continental shelf, or even on a fixed or floating wind turbine in the UK exclusive economic zone.
HSE legislation has rightly been extended to cover workers’ rights, but it is incomplete and, as a result, workers are at greater risk. Mobile drilling units such as Valaris 121 are classified as a ship or a vessel when towed, meaning that they fall outwith HSE jurisdiction and within that of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Accordingly, while the HSE could and very likely would have carried out a full investigation had this incident been on land, a rig or even a turbine, it is restricted in what it can do in this instance. Likewise, a report that may have seen a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland or a coroner’s court hearing in England and Wales will not happen. Why is that? It is because it is not classified as a health and safety issue, giving the HSE authority. Instead, it is considered a maritime safety matter, and the MCA has authority and leads these investigations through the marine accident investigation branch.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward. When it comes to health and safety, we are all concerned. Given the fact that the offshore energy created comes on land in Scotland and England, is there some role for the Health and Safety Executive, even though, as he has clearly outlined, the MCA takes precedence? If the energy is coming here and the workers work out of Scotland and England, is there not a responsibility?
Kenny MacAskill
As I will come on to say, the HSE does a good job onshore, on oil and gas and on turbines, but we require that its powers be extended. It is the agency. The MCA and the MAIB do a wonderful job in preserving life and ensuring wider maritime safety, but they are not qualified in industrial accidents; neither are employment laws within their remit. Fundamentally, and worsening that handicap in expertise, the MCA does not even have responsibility for the investigation, or jurisdiction over this incident. That is because it occurred outwith UK territorial waters, which extend to 12 miles. Beyond that distance, even when within the UK exclusive economic zone of 200 miles and on the UK continental shelf, incidents are subject to international maritime regulations, which prescribe that the investigating agency is to be from the vessel’s flag state. That is the country where the ship is registered.
Valaris 121 is registered in Liberia, a flag state managed in Virginia, USA. Accordingly, we have the absurdity of responsibility for an investigation and jurisdiction in enforcement for an incident leading to the death of a UK worker resting not with police or Crown, HSE or MCA, or even with an organisation based in Edinburgh or London, but in the flag state of Liberia, a country located on another continent. That country is one of the world’s largest shipping registers and is categorised by the International Transport Workers Federation as a flag of convenience. That means that employment and safety standards are at the international minimum and ship owners pay no tax to the Liberian state. That alone is a concern, as questions are sometimes raised regarding registration, let alone supervision.
Despite my asking numerous questions, the Government are unable to tell me how many vessels operating in the UK sector are foreign flagged. That should be a concern, as anecdotally it would seem that the vast majority are not registered under the red ensign, despite the Government’s obsession with wrapping things in the Union Jack.
The Lord Advocate advised that a multi-agency meeting took place to discuss the incident; it involved representatives of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Republic of Liberia. They discussed who would have primacy in the various investigations. I do not know this, but I assume that it was a virtual meeting; likewise, I do not know who the representative from Liberia was, or what level of seniority they had. The Lord Advocate explained further that Police Scotland remains in charge of the missing person enquiry, though, sadly, the body may never be recovered.
The Lord Advocate confirmed that the HSE remained the lead agency for the investigation in Scotland and the UK—but doing what, and enforcing which laws? Is that because there is no one here from Liberia to do it, and because the only folk nearby are from the HSE? Will we simply see a report filed and no further action taken? More importantly, how does this address the failure to extend health and safety legislation for the oil and gas sector to the new world of offshore wind, other renewable energies and nascent green technologies such as hydrogen, carbon capture and storage and liquefied natural gas?
Leaving aside the good intentions of the Lord Advocate and the diligent work by the HSE, let us recall where jurisdiction and enforcement lie: with the flag state, Liberia. Let me again set out why that is—all this has been confirmed through repeated parliamentary answers from several Government Departments.
Health and safety legislation applies to workers on land and operating in UK territorial waters, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned; those territorial waters extend for 12 miles. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Application outside Great Britain) Order 2013 applies to oil and gas, and even turbines, but that is insufficient for the new sector, as I shall detail. Valaris 121 is classified as a vessel or ship, which means that it is not subject to that legislation. As the tragedy happened outwith UK territorial waters, it is classified as a maritime incident—hence the involvement of the flag state, and the absurdity of Liberian jurisdiction. The issue of the absence of health and safety rights goes far wider than this incident or this vessel. It goes to the very heart of how the new sector to which we are transitioning operates.
As disclosed in parliamentary answer 139284 from the Department for Work and Pensions, under the 2013 order, health and safety protection applies to those operating in the offshore wind sector when on a “structure or machine”; the provisions apply to
“structures for the production of energy from wind”,
and to
“the operation of a cable for transmitting electricity from an energy structure.”
All well, one might think, but no; the legislation goes on to specifically state:
“Ships are not defined as energy structures for the purposes of this legislation.”
Therein lies the injustice of this North sea tragedy. It also shows that current provisions are incapable of providing the protections required for workers in this new sector. There are two clear reasons for that. First, few people work on a turbine; it is accessing, maintaining and supporting turbines that matters. Workers do not live on them, as they do on oil and gas rigs—or at least not yet, and if that changed, living accommodation would likely be confined to flotels, special operation vessels and other entirely separate solutions. If protection is provided only when people are physically working on the turbine, that totally ignores the nature of both the job and the sector.
Secondly, Valaris is classified as a vessel or ship, but she is not what most imagine a vessel or ship to be, as she is designed as a working platform. Some workers will be drilling, and others will be working while attached to a turbine. If they are physically attached to the turbine, then they are covered, but when they are travelling to the turbine or back, or even if they are proximate to it but not physically attached to it—that will likely be the bulk of the work—they are not.
The current legislation fails to take account of the operation of and working practices in offshore wind. It is an expanding and developing sector, which means that people are being denied cover in aspects of the work that lack protections. The danger is that this tragedy might be replicated, and oft times more, given the expansion of the sector. Health and safety protections that apply for oil and gas must be available for offshore wind and other renewables.
I have had discussions with Offshore Energies UK, which takes safety extremely seriously, as the House would expect, and it has indicated an acceptance of the gap and a willingness to assist in resolving the situation. To address it, the definition of energy structures under the 2013 order needs to be extended, and legislation to protect seafarers operating in the offshore wind sector needs to be enacted, but so far the DWP has failed to show any interest. Will the Minister agree to meet me and worker representatives to discuss this? There must be a just transition for our planet, but there must also be a just transition for workers, and this most certainly is not a just transition in the offshore wind sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) for bringing this important debate to the House, and I appreciate and understand the passion and conviction he brings to this debate. The UK Government take very seriously health and safety on offshore wind farms in Great Britain’s territorial sea and the UK continental shelf, and I am keen to reassure the hon. Gentleman that my officials at the HSE confirm that we have a strong and appropriate existing regulatory regime, which applies the protection afforded by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to people working on offshore wind farms.
On the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, let me spell out that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Application outside Great Britain) Order 2013 applies the provisions of the 1974 Act. This covers certain activities offshore, including work associated with offshore wind farms, as well as other offshore installations such as those for oil and gas. Therefore, the 1974 Act applies to offshore wind farms in the territorial sea and the UK continental shelf as well as to renewable energy zones, which are also defined in the 2013 order. The 2013 order also applies the provisions of the 1974 Act to offshore oil and gas installations in designated areas in the UK continental shelf—I really hope that pacifies the hon. Gentleman. I will say more about that and come on to some of his other points later.
Furthermore, the 1974 Act places a legal duty on employers to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of workers and others to ensure that they are kept safe, whether they are working on oil or gas or, as I said, wind farm installations. In addition, other legislation that applies to work on offshore wind farms includes the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. This helps employers to ensure that their work is planned and that risks are assessed and managed. Those regulations also ensure that employers consult and engage with workers and make sure that information is communicated to all those who need to know it.
The Health and Safety Executive enforces the 1974 Act and subsidiary health and safety legislation on offshore wind farms. The HSE does not have the legal basis to enforce activities that are not specifically covered by the 2013 order. In those situations, however, other regulators and organisations will enforce health and safety legislation or investigate accidents. For example, in a situation where a ship is in transit and the HSE’s regulations do not apply, such a ship will still need to comply with national and international maritime standards.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is responsible for enforcing all merchant shipping regulations in respect of occupational health and safety, the safety of vessels, safe navigation and operation. This includes manning levels and crew competency. Merchant shipping health and safety regulations extend to all those working on the ship and any work activities undertaken on board. These powers of the MCA extend to UK ships anywhere in the world and to non-UK ships that are within UK territorial waters.
The marine accident investigation branch investigates marine accidents involving UK vessels worldwide and all vessels in UK territorial waters. Its role is to help prevent further avoidable accidents from occurring, not to establish blame or liability.
For foreign flagged ships in the UK continental shelf, the responsibility for investigating accidents lies with the flag state. A memorandum of understanding between the HSE, the MCA and the MAIB ensures effective collaborative working. Each organisation has differing responsibilities for health and safety enforcement and accident investigation. An operational working agreement provides clarity and consistency where the jurisdiction of the HSE, the MCA and MAIB overlap. It outlines the key and supporting principles to be adopted when selecting the lead organisation for health and safety enforcement and accident investigation.
The HSE’s energy division has a team of inspectors dedicated to the regulation of work activities at offshore wind farms. They are supported by various onshore and offshore specialists who provide technical advice on a range of relevant subjects during inspection, investigation and enforcement of high-risk activities. This addresses poor health and safety performance and provides reassurance that there is good health and safety management of such activities.
Kenny MacAskill
I spoke earlier with Offshore Energies UK and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, and this is not a criticism of any existing or past Government. There is a legislative gap because technology has moved so fast and nobody anticipated it. We now, however, have a situation, which I think is accepted by employers and employee representatives, where those working in the sector are not getting the proper coverage that should apply. Does the Minister not accept that there is something wrong here in primacy resting with Liberia, and that we need to extend the 2013 order to the new operations as they exist now, and indeed as they may be in a few years?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will make some further points, and I hope we can then come to a mutual arrangement and I can reassure him on the issues he raises. The points he makes can come into the conversation.
I have spelled out that the HSE energy division has inspectors dedicated to the regulation of work activities at offshore wind farms, but I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that a lot is going on in this sector and there needs to be reassurance. I have spelled out some of the regulatory activity. The HSE works with industry bodies and UK regulators to ensure that sensible solutions are found to emerging risks.
On shipping standards, where the HSE regulations do not apply to work activities on ships because they fall outside the scope of the 1974 Act and the 2013 order, international shipping regulations provide a broadly equivalent level of safety to international shipping. International conventions on shipping, such as the international convention for the safety of life at sea, the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships and the maritime labour convention 2006 set a level playing field, as all ships are surveyed by their flag and can be inspected by port states against the internationally agreed standards. Under this regime Valaris was inspected by the MCA when it reached port in the UK, but I do appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s points on that.
On Valaris 121, the Health and Safety Executive has served an improvement notice on Ensco Offshore U.K. Ltd relating to incorrectly installed gratings on Valaris 121 when it was in port in Dundee.
On the flag state investigations of accidents occurring on the UK continental shelf, the flag state of the ship involved is responsible for ensuring that an investigation is conducted and completed in accordance with the casualty investigation code. The code mandates that certain incidents set out in chapter 1, part A, of the 1974 international convention for the safety of life at sea—or SOLAS—are investigated.
The hon. Member for East Lothian mentioned flags of convenience. Open registries can pose a challenge to maritime security and the enforcement of laws on the high seas. That is because some flag states do not, or cannot, exercise effective oversight of the ships on their registers, as I think the hon. Member pointed out.
While there is some evidence of poor practice taking place under open registries, there is no direct correlation between poor-performing ships and open registries. However, Liberia, the Bahamas and the Marshall Islands are all open registries and were at the top of the 15 countries for low detention rates under the 2021 Paris memorandum of understanding on port state control.
It is an important issue that some flag states do not have independent investigation bodies that may investigate accidents in UKCS. The marine administrations for the Isle of Man, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Gibraltar do not have independent investigation bodies, and therefore have difficulty in ensuring that safety investigations are impartial and objective. A memorandum of understanding has therefore been reached, which the UK’s Marine Accident Investigation Branch has agreed to, to investigate incidents involving ships registered with those marine administrations. The procedure for those investigations set out in the legislation in force in the relevant marine administration’s territory will apply.
I will cover two other points, then hopefully start to conclude. The hon. Gentleman will be keen to know that the responsibility for regulating the health and safety of workers travelling to and from offshore workplaces—wind farms or oil and gas installations—rests with the MCA within the territorial sea and for UK-flagged vessels.
The responsibility for health and safety enforcement activities and accident investigation is described in the MOU between HSE, the MCA and the MAIB. That is supported by an operational working agreement that provides clarity and consistency where the jurisdiction of the respective agencies overlap.
In terms of those transiting to and from offshore workplaces, the responsibility for regulating those transits rests with the MCA within the territorial sea and for UK-flagged vessels. Again, the responsibility for health and safety enforcement activities and accident investigation is in the MOU between HSE, the MCA and the MAIB. Again, that is supported by an operational working agreement that provides clarity and consistency where the jurisdiction of the respective agencies overlap. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. Does he want to come in on that?
Kenny MacAskill
I hope the Minister would accept that the technology is changing and that most of the new turbines will be outwith UK territorial waters in many instances, which changes the nature of the jurisdiction. The organisations she referred to, the MAIB and so on, have skills, but they are not skills relating to health and safety at work. The fundamental difficulty is that the nature of the operation is not attached to the physical turbine. The nature of the activity is either accessing it or working in close proximity to it. This man went off a ship that had been doing that and yet we are faced with Liberia. It is on that basis, because of the new world we face, that I seek for the Government to extend the 2013 order. We are anticipating a new world and we do not know what the North sea will look like, but it will be a very busy workforce and a very busy workplace that is very different from what we have at the moment.
Mims Davies
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about learning from what happened and ensuring it is fit for purpose, and, above all, ensuring that he and the workers involved feel reassured. I want to reassure him that the HSE works closely with G+ Offshore Wind Health and Safety Organisation and its members to promote an understanding of the offshore wind farm regime and the regulations I have spelled out tonight.
On EU retained law, which the hon. Gentleman covered, the HSE remains focused on ensuring that regulatory frameworks maintain the UK’s high standards on health and safety protection, while continuing to reduce burdens on business. The HSE’s approach closely aligns with the Government’s pledge to do more for businesses to promote growth by removing disproportionate burdens and simplifying the regulatory regime. Our standards of health and safety protections are among the highest in the world. The HSE will continue to review retained EU law to seek opportunities to reduce those burdens and promote growth, but not reduce health and safety standards.
In conclusion, I have, I hope, set out the regulatory framework in place to ensure the health and safety of people working at offshore wind farms, and have detailed that the HSE is one of a number of regulators and organisations that work together to ensure that employers maintain health and safety standards in this sector and protect their workers. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the UK Government continue to take health and safety on wind farms very seriously, and recognise the contribution made by this sector to energy security and the net zero programme. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring the hon. Gentleman that the current regulatory regime and framework in place is sufficiently robust to protect the health and safety of workers, but I appreciate —he has made some excellent points this evening—that it is a complex, growing and challenging picture. I offer to facilitate a meeting between him and HSE officials, along with other relevant Departments and officials, so that we can further reassure him, the sector, employers and those who work in it that his concerns are fully understood and addressed.
Question put and agreed to.
Benefit Sanctions
Kenny MacAskill Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on introducing this important issue that it is very appropriate to debate at this time. I will start by saying what this debate is not about. It is not about benefit fraud, in case the Daily Mail or others thought it was. That is rare—far rarer than tax avoidance—but it is dealt with by criminal prosecution, and rightly so because it is about public funds.
Equally, I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that there should be no sanctions. What is required is an appropriate form of sanctions in every walk of life, whether in a social club or a political party. If someone transgresses, there have to be repercussions. If we breach the rules here, we can rightly face sanctions. I am a former chair of the judicial panel of the Scottish Football Association; even in sport, if someone breaks the laws through misconduct on or off the park, they will rightly face some challenge. The issue is that the extent of it is far too great, certainly at a time of huge austerity.
More importantly, it is about the reasonableness and proportionality of sanctions. Players do not get banned sine die for two minor yellow cards in a football match, yet people are facing something that would almost bring them to the end of their life. Equally, it is about the circumstances in which these sanctions are being imposed. There has to be some understanding of the individual we are dealing with and the circumstances in which they are living, as opposed to having draconian measures.
It is well over 40 years since I graduated in law. I did welfare law as part of my law degree. At that stage, it was national insurance and supplementary benefit. Even then, when supplementary benefit was brought in in the Beveridge plan, it was set at a level that was the very minimum upon which someone could live. But our circumstances have changed since then. Not simply have we gone through mass unemployment; we have moved towards a gig economy and people in vulnerable occupations. We have moved away from the national insurance supplementary benefit scheme to universal credit. That has caused challenges and difficulties, but it seems that the moral compass has been lost. We have lost any element of compassion. Looking back, sanctions did apply to national insurance and supplementary benefit, but they were proportional, reasonable and certainly not to the extent that we have today.
Three issues follow from that. As has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West and others, punishment is being exacted upon those who work in the Department for Work and Pensions. They are threatened with punishment, and potentially with dismissal, if they do not get their number of sanctions up. That is simply unacceptable. This should be not a target-driven system, but a welfare state and a welfare system. It should be about the individual and the circumstances, not any spurious targets.
We know from PCS and other whistleblowers that many people worry that if they do not enforce a sanction against an individual, they will face consequences. That is simply unacceptable. That is not simply from the PCS; we know it from welfare rights officers. Any welfare rights officer in any constituency will tell a similar tale. It even goes beyond that. We see it in fiction on television and cinema screens. It is a few years now since “I, Daniel Blake” came out—an award-winning movie that highlighted the difficulties and, indeed, tragedy of the sanctions scheme. It is a few years past now, but the circumstances remain. I am fortunate to have been a friend of that film’s writer for over 40 years, and I know that although the movie was fictional, it was based on fact. As we would meet and discuss, he would tell me about the meetings he had had with people at food banks, trade union representatives and welfare representatives. He told me stories, such as that of the woman who had a miscarriage, who was unable to get to her appointment with the DWP and who was sanctioned, or the young father who rushed to the hospital to be at the birth of his child, whose sister phoned the DWP to say, “He cannot come; he’s gone to see the birth of his child. Surely that will be okay.” No, it wasn’t, because when he next turned up, he found himself sanctioned.
Those stories are not fiction: they are fact, and that is simply unacceptable. That is why it was not Paul Laverty but Ken Loach, who filmed the movie, who described our benefits system as “institutionalised cruelty”. The sanctions system is institutionalised cruelty, because we are taking the most vulnerable people—those who have the least income at a time of inclement weather, rising costs and enforced austerity, when work can be hard to find as unemployment figures are going up—and treating them harshly.
It is not even as if it works. As other Members have mentioned, many of these people, if not most of them, have significant challenges, whether with mental health, educational difficulties, or—as shown in “I, Daniel Blake”—simply being able to access IT. In some instances, it can be the inability to access the equipment; in other instances, it can be a generational gap. I am challenged by IT systems, and people of my age who do not have access to those systems will be even more challenged. Sanctions do not help those people; what they require is more of a mentoring scheme.
In summary, what we have to do and what the Minister must try to move towards is a system that by all means contains sanctions for those who fundamentally breach it, because that is unacceptable to those who pay their taxes and abide by the law, but where an individual is challenged, they have to be supported. Where an individual has reasonable, proportionate circumstances and an explanation, they most certainly should not be punished, and we most certainly should not see people being treated harshly as a result of a tick-box system to get the figures up. That is fundamentally wrong. It would not apply in most private businesses, and it certainly should not apply in a welfare state.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kenny MacAskill Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laura Trott
I do understand the uncertainty, but we must wait for 17 November. However, the average state pension is £185 a week, which is about double what it was in 2010 when we took over.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
I am currently conducting my statutory annual review of state pensions and benefit rates. The outcome of that review will be announced in due course.
Kenny MacAskill
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The Trussell Trust is reporting that 40% of universal credit claimants are skipping meals due to budgetary constraints. Does he accept that with the full energy crisis costs yet impacting them and, indeed, with winter still to arrive, it would be perverse if bankers’ bonuses were to be uncapped while pension benefits were not to increase at least in line with inflation?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the various answers given from the Dispatch Box about the support that the Government are giving, particularly to those who are most vulnerable, across winter. In respect of food and food banks, that is pertinent. However, I am afraid that he will receive the same answer about when the House will come to know of the uprating that may be applied to pensions and benefits more generally, and the pensions triple lock. That is a decision for me as Secretary of State, of course in conjunction with discussions with the Treasury, and those figures will be available at the time of the autumn statement on 17 November.
In-work Poverty
Kenny MacAskill Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Ms Rees. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing the debate and for his comments.
In-work poverty undermines the social contract that evolved in this country after world war two with the establishment of the welfare state. The whole purpose of Beveridge was that people would work and pay national insurance, which would provide for their sickness and retirement. Those who fell through the gap would be dealt with by supplementary benefit. Work was the route out of poverty. That is no longer the situation.
We now have in-work poverty, as others have said—something that is unprecedented in recent times. That is not an accident; it is an economic model that has come from the United States. It was brought in—established perhaps—by Clinton. For those who have not read it, I recommend the book by Barbara Ehrenreich, “Nickel and Dimed”. She refers to the United States that came into being after the reforms brought in by Bill Clinton in 1996 with the Welfare Reform Act. That created a low-wage economy. It might have created many jobs, and Clinton dined out on that for a long time, until people began to drill down into what was actually happening. It was a low-wage economy. Ehrenreich talks about people having to do one, two or three jobs simply to survive—not to pay medical bills or school fees, but simply to live—because the cost of living made it impossible. We perceived that to be a problem for people in the United States, which did not have a welfare state, and that it would not apply here. We still have a welfare state, but it is beginning to fall apart—not just fraying at the seams, but being eroded, corroded and, indeed, torn down from within.
The whole concept of work being a route out of poverty no longer applies. That simply is not the case, as we can see all about us. It is not simply about the statistics that have been mentioned; we are conscious of other aspects. The problem hits every corner of this country and applies to every sector. The movie “Sorry We Missed You” highlights how the issue affects social care and distribution, but there is hardly a sector that is not affected.
The problem is not restricted simply to those who work on zero-hour contracts because, as in the United States, we now have people who cannot live on the hours they get in one job; they have to do two or three jobs simply to survive, and we have to make sure that that changes. It is simply unacceptable, and a breach of the social contract that was supposed to be the benefit of world war two.
We still see risks, so what can we do about them? First and foremost, we have to recognise that this was an issue even before coronavirus and the cost of living crisis. It was, as others have correctly testified, predicated on high rents. People were unable to earn enough to meet their rent, and they had to choose between paying their rent and eating. That is now compounded by a cost of living increase, especially for fuel, and inflation is hammering food costs. Now, the situation is not just about people managing to pay the rent, but deciding whether they can heat their homes before even indulging in feeding themselves and their children. Society has to change, but how can we do it?
Fundamentally, we must ensure first of all that we have a living wage. Our current minimum wage is not enough; it needs to be a national living wage. We need to empower trade unions, because workers are being driven right over. We must regulate, so that people can afford their rent. Finally, as we face escalating fuel costs, we need a social tariff and an end to the abomination of standing charges, which are impoverishing people. There is a better way. This is not the society that was anticipated by the generations before us.
Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits
Kenny MacAskill Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Our benefits system in the United Kingdom has gone through many changes and iterations since it was first devised in the Beveridge plan back during world war two. It was felt essential, if there was to be a people’s war against fascism and if people were expected to make the necessary sacrifices, that there would be a fairer future—something that should be borne in mind given the challenges we face with coronavirus at the present moment. Even Winston Churchill was prepared to accept that logic. The system came in with supplementary benefit and the national insurance contributions scheme. It was assumed that supplementary benefit would simply catch a few folk who would fall through the gaps in the system: there would be employment and those who fell from employment would have paid in and would be able to take out before they returned to employment.
There have been significant legislative changes, and there have also been changes to our society and our economy, but the fact is that the system is not working. Some of those who are receiving universal credit are unemployed, but, as many speakers have said, nearly half—certainly 40%—of universal credit claimants are in work. They are the working poor. I accept the logic of what many Conservative Members have said—that the route out of poverty is normally through employment. I have always believed that the best way of increasing wages is to create full employment and that would be the solution, but it is certainly not working at the moment. That has proved to be a mirage and that is the challenge.
I am a child of the ’60s who grew up West Lothian and I now represent East Lothian. There is not just a similarity in name but a similarity in heritage—a coal mining heritage. I lived in a prosperous part, but all around there was poverty as the economy and society sought to transform. However, let me be clear: back then I never saw the poverty that I see today. None of it existed. Were there kids who got free school meals in the 1960s? Of course there were, but there was not the hunger and the queues at food banks. Were there people who huddled next to a two-bar electric fire in winter trying to keep warm? Yes, but not people who would have to make a choice between being able to feed their children, feed themselves and heat their home this winter. Yes, there were kids who went to school with holes in their jerseys or, as we said in Scotland, their gutties—you might describe them as black sandshoes—even in winter, but we did not need to have the clothes banks and we did not have kids unable to go to school because they did not have the clothes to put upon their back. That is the society we now have.
Just last week, I saw a satirical website where there was a spoof: the Secretary of State had declared the majority of Paralympians fit for work. It was caustic but witty. Perhaps it may be reviewed and some may find that they are facing more than a doping test in years to come. That may have been fiction, but the fact has been put on the screen. As Ken Loach has stated, our benefits system is institutionalised cruelty. That has been disclosed on the screen in his movie “I, Daniel Blake”, which won a Palme d’Or. It showed the hardship and cruelty that are inflicted by the system that we possess. That was in 2016, although the film was indeed scripted in the years long before.
We are now in 2021. Our society has never been richer. Some have never had more wealth. Inequality has never increased at the pace that it is today. Yet the level of destitution and despair that exists in some parts is shameful—it is something that we have to oppose. On that basis, I have no hesitation in supporting the motion. The uplift needs to be preserved because poverty is being imposed not by some misfortune but by a political choice, and that is unacceptable.
The Future of Work
Kenny MacAskill Excerpts(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for bringing this debate to the Chamber. What we have to do—and many Members have already done so—is set out the context, both past and present. Change is inevitable. It is coming, and it may just be an age factor, but I realise we cannot roll back time and it is not all bad. There are challenges, but there are also huge opportunities. I do not believe that the future need be either dystopian, or indeed, apocalyptic. The future can be bright if we fight and deliver a fair and just society for all, and that is what we need do.
I also think we need to remember the past, because it was not all halcyon days. My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire was right to praise the Scottish Government for pardoning minors for convictions in the industrial struggle back in the 1980s, but let us not have any rosy picture about the nature of the jobs: the work in the pits, the work in the yards, the work offshore and the work on fishing boats. It was hard. It was dirty. It was dangerous. I do not think any of us regret that our children are not required to serve in that. So let us remember with pride, but let us also remember that in some ways, the change—in the automation and moving away from those jobs—has been a good thing. The same can occur in a society if we mould it in the manner that we want.
Change is inevitable, as has been mentioned by all speakers. Pre- and post-covid, there were changes. Before covid, in IT automation, the pace, the number of jobs; that was referred to by others, and we spoke about the union learning fund. The number of jobs that youngsters entering into the labour market are required to carry out will be significantly greater than in the days of my grandfather, who almost got a gold watch for going into the same place day in, day out for most of his life. Post covid, the changes have simply accelerated, and we are required to bear that in mind. There are huge challenges, that I will come on to, but equally, we have seen how Zoom has transformed with our very own eyes in these last few months.
New jobs have come about, but sadly, far too many jobs have been lost. Therefore, the first target has to be tackling unemployment. History tells us the dangers that all societies—and especially our own—can face from the challenges of mass unemployment coming around once again. It is not just the difficulties that can be faced in the body politic in the world of politics and governance, but the challenges that individuals face when we see our jobs go, and then heroin and alcohol flood in, so we require to tackle unemployment with a will and with vigour.
That comes back to the basic premise: we need to minimise the challenges and we need to maximise the opportunities. It can be done, because things do need to be done. We do need to upskill our people, as the buzzword goes; we do need to deliver that green new deal to tackle climate warming; we do need to ensure that society allows access for all, especially the disabled and most especially, the young.
Kirsten Oswald
I am particularly troubled by the story that a young friend of mine told me. My young friend has a learning disability, but has held down a job and done very well at that job for a significant number of years. He recently lost that job because of the challenges of covid, and I am particularly concerned by what this will mean for people such as him in the future. We cannot build that inequality into the future. What does my hon. Friend think about that?
Kenny MacAskill
That is why we have to ensure that we tighten employment legislation that has been loosened over recent years. Other speakers mentioned that, but this is about ensuring rights for all and, as I say, especially the disabled. It also comes on to the point about workplace changes. I have mentioned the nature of the jobs that we have lost, but there was one benefit that came from them, and that was unionisation. It was and remains important that workers have rights. I always remember reading that the largest single site employer in the United States is not Boeing; it is not even the Pentagon. It is Disney World. I recall that my grandfather started his training as a carpenter at Parkhead Forge. It was the largest single site employer in Scotland—up to 40,000 people—and is now a retail shopping centre. The problem is that it has brought about the gig economy, and made it difficult for people to come together to organise. We must have a balance between capital and labour.
Mention has been made about the IWGB. I have been involved with it on foster parents while others have worked with it on the gig economy, but we need to ensure employment rights. That is fundamental. We must address the nature of the work that is taking place, because the gig economy is grinding people down. I am fortunate enough to be a good friend of Paul Laverty, who, along with Ken Loach, wrote the movie “Sorry We Missed You”. That is fiction, but it is based in fact: the story could have been written in 101 different ways, all about the exploitation of individuals who are low paid, hired and fired, and used and abused. They are human beings, not battery hens. As political bodies, we and the Government must ensure that we provide protections for them. That is most certainly necessary.
We must also remember the challenges that are coming around because of covid and those that existed before, such as the gig economy, which the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned. During my brief time-out from politics, I went away and wrote books. I wrote one about the dispute in Glasgow in 1919, when, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will know, there was also a huge strike in Belfast, as well as in areas of England. What people forget is that that was not just a battle in George Square between the forces of law and order and our industrial workers, but a strike for a 40-hour week.
If we went out in the streets today and spoke to people, they would say, “Give me a 40-hour week. I’d be grateful if I had a 40-hour week and could live on what I earn.” More than a century on, it is shameful that people cannot get a living wage. That movement was driven because men were coming back after being demobilised from the first world war and there were going to be challenges. Before they went on strike for a 40-hour week, they had argued for a 32-hour week.
We need to start looking at a four-day week, but ensuring that people can pay their way. Countries such as Sweden have shown that working for four days means the same—or increased—productivity as working for five. Far too many people in our country are not working for 40 hours a week, but for far longer. We need to address that because, frankly, it is shameful and there is a better way.
This is not just about the gig economy, but about the type of work that needs to be done. The hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) was quite right: social care is absolutely essential, but it cannot be used and abused. It was hard enough to be on a fishing boat or in the pits, but working for hour upon hour on your feet as a social care worker is miserable. We need to ensure that those jobs are properly recompensed and protected, which comes back to the point about balance between capital and labour, the need for unionisation, and the need for a living wage and not simply a minimum wage.
Society can be better, but there is work to do. We must build and retrofit houses, and do the same for schools, hospitals and other buildings that will be necessary to meet the climate change challenges that we face. We can choose a better way. There are significant challenges; we cannot turn back time, but if the Government are prepared, willing and able to ensure that the rights of workers are protected and that the excesses of individual employers are reined in—there are good employers out there, but some are deeply exploitative—we can get that balance.
Countries such as Germany, which has a right-of-centre Government whom I would not necessarily support, have found that better productivity, better quality of life, and higher standards of living can be and are better delivered by respecting trade unions and even having them on boards of directors—not just in public companies, but in private ones. Will the Minister ensure that adequate workers’ rights and protections are provided? If we provide them, the future can be bright and we can build back better, but the Government must ensure that they take charge to protect workers’ rights, rather than allowing a race to the bottom.