As the Presiding Officer said, this item of business is a debate on motion S4M-14791, in the name of Hugh Henry, on women and social security. I call Clare Adamson to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Welfare Reform Committee. Ms Adamson, you have 13 minutes or thereby, please.
15:01
I welcome the opportunity to speak to members today in order to share the conclusions of the Welfare Reform Committee’s inquiry and the recommendations in our report “Women and Social Security”. The committee reported that the reforms to the social security system have had a damaging and disproportionate impact on women, particularly disabled women, lone parents, carers, refugee women and those experiencing domestic abuse. The cumulative effect negatively impacts on not only women’s lives but those of their families and the people they care for.
Although the committee welcomed reports that there are more women in work than ever before, we cannot escape the fact that £26 billion-worth of cuts have been made to benefits, tax credits and pay and pensions since 2010. According to the House of Commons library, 85 per cent of the £26 billion has been taken from women’s incomes. The committee heard that one of the reasons for that disproportionate impact is existing systemic inequality for women, which has been aggravated by the recent reforms to the social security system.
I am sure that all members are aware of the challenges that women face in finding accessible, good-quality childcare. In that regard, we heard about women being forced into lower-level, pink-collar jobs; women earning less in the workplace; and the overreliance on women as primary carers. Those situations impact on people over their lifetime and mean, for example, that women have fewer financial assets and less access to occupational pensions than men; that women are twice as likely to give up paid work in order to care; and that 92 per cent of lone parents are women. Overall, it is clear to see why women are twice as dependent on the social security system as men are.
I thank members of the Welfare Reform Committee, the clerking team and all those who contributed to our deliberations for the report. The committee published the report “Women and Social Security” in July this year. Based on the written and oral evidence received, the committee made a number of conclusions and recommendations. I particularly thank committee member Christina McKelvie for suggesting the approach that our deliberations should take. I will not be able to cover all our recommendations, but I will try to give a flavour of our main findings, with the caveat that the Conservative member of the committee noted their dissent from certain conclusions and recommendations, as detailed in the report.
Let us look at some of the main changes. One of the biggest reforms, which is still in the roll-out phase, is to universal credit. The principles behind that can be seen as laudable; making it easier for everyone to gain and sustain employment should be a good thing. However, in evidence the committee heard that the financial arrangements for second earners, who are most likely to be women, may discourage them from entering the labour market at all. That is why we called on the UK Government to rethink the earnings disregard for second earners to make work more financially worthwhile for second earners, who are mainly women.
The committee welcomed the proposals to allow Scotland discretion over the administrative elements. We would like the Scottish Government to use those powers to move from monthly payments and single household payments in order to allow women to budget more effectively and to preserve their financial autonomy in the household. We would also like a return to housing payments being made directly to the landlord. Being able to choose what is best for them and their family and decrease the risk of rent arrears will improve women’s security and their ability to provide for their children.
I turn to employment and job-seeking support. Working women need a new Scottish social security system that will overcome the barriers that prevent or restrict their labour market participation. For it to be at its most effective, we believe that job-seeking support should be integrated across health, housing and social care and tailored to meet the needs of particular groups. The committee would like the Scottish Government to think about how it can incentivise employers to provide truly flexible working arrangements for women with caring responsibilities and reduce the dependence on short-term and zero-hours contracts.
The committee recognises the work that has been done in Scotland so far on increasing childcare provision. However, more can be done. Efforts to improve the availability, quality and flexibility of childcare in order to allow women to return to work if that is their wish should continue to be a top priority.
We also examined the impact on lone parents. We heard that the system creates pressures, especially on lone parents, to apply for or take up work that does not fit in with their caring responsibilities. To avoid that pressure, we want the DWP to make jobcentres more welcoming, to train staff appropriately and to provide experts with specialist knowledge of particular circumstances. That is especially important given the announcement in the emergency budget earlier this year that, from April 2017, parents who claim universal credit, including lone parents, will be expected to prepare for work from when their youngest child turns two and to look for work when their youngest child turns three.
We need to make sure that the existing safeguards for lone parents work to avoid single mothers being threatened with or receiving sanctions inappropriately. That brings me to the S word and one of the areas of greatest concern—sanctions. The committee has always taken a strong view on the impact of sanctions. Although the necessity for some form of conditionality is welcomed and understood by the committee, we believe that the current operation of the so-called sanctions regime can be punishing and counterproductive. The committee will continue to demand of the Department for Work and Pensions a review of the application of its policies at a local level to ensure that sanctions are only ever a last resort.
We have also joined the UK Parliament’s Work and Pensions Committee to call on the UK Government to conduct a comprehensive independent review of sanctions to identify whether they actually have their desired effect and encourage people into work. In addition, we want the UK Government to publish a tracking study to follow the true cost of being sanctioned and how it impacts not just on the immediate finances of the claimant but on local authority services, the third sector and the NHS.
The committee also took evidence on the impact on women who experience domestic violence. In talking about the true costs of the reforms, we need to consider the knock-on impact on particular groups.
Women who experience domestic and financial abuse have suffered a decrease in their financial autonomy, which increases the risk of their remaining with or returning to abusers. We found that that can be a particular issue for European Economic Area job seekers whose right to reside is based on their partner’s status.
The UK Government should consider what further security and protection it can offer women who wish to leave abusive partners. We want the DWP to promote its domestic violence easement flexibilities, to remove job-seeking pressure from women who are exiting abusive relationships.
The danger of a lack of financial autonomy is particularly experienced by refugee women. The committee heard that women in refugee households might not receive a national insurance number for several weeks. On some occasions, women do not receive their national insurance number until after significant advocacy work on the part of the third sector or an elected member. The lack of a NI number can leave women destitute, with no right to claim benefits in their own name and potentially no bank account or financial independence. We have raised the issue with the UK Government, so that it can do more to speed up the process and give such women the right to financial autonomy.
This week the committee heard about the impact of the sanctions regime and work capability assessments on women with mental health issues. We had looked at the issue when we wrote the report and we had heard about the reforms’ disproportionate impact on women. The processes that must be undergone have a serious impact on women with mental health issues. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde cited evidence that women in its area have a significantly poorer mental health profile than men have and told us:
“Loss of income and stigma through sanctioning or changes in benefits are very large risk factors in precipitating mental health problems and suicide.”
The committee was therefore shocked when witnesses told us that the recent tightening of the eligibility criteria for employment and support allowance discriminates against women with mental health issues. The new screening system places more requirements on women to prove that they are at high risk of self-harm or suicide than it places on men who undergo the same assessment. Therefore, not only is the impact of the cuts being disproportionately felt by women but women are having to go to disproportionate lengths to prove the negative impact on their mental health. The committee has written to the UK minister to try to understand why the UK Government has put in place such a potentially discriminatory policy.
The committee considered the impact of the social security reforms on carers and children. Of course, negative impacts are felt keenly not only by carers but by the people for whom they care. We know that 74 per cent of people in receipt of carers allowance are women. Women who take on caring roles make an essential contribution to society, but many take on significant challenges when they take on a caring role, as we heard. Carers often see a sharp rise in household expenditure, accompanied by a drop in income, because the earnings disregard is so low as to act as a disincentive to work. That is why the committee supports the Scottish Government’s proposal to bring carers allowance into line with jobseekers allowance.
The committee also believes that there should be a stronger link between the social security system and the Scottish Government’s approach to child poverty and getting it right for every child. We encourage the Scottish Government to consider those links when it is planning the delivery of devolved benefits.
Given the potential for Scotland to use the proposed devolved powers over benefits, we are in interesting and challenging times. The committee welcomes the devolution of further social security powers to Scotland, which presents an opportunity to rectify some of the systemic inequalities that women face and to reverse some of the disproportionate impact that I have been talking about.
When the Scottish Government takes the opportunity afforded by further devolution to design a new system, we want it to embed gender and human rights analysis in the whole process. We need to examine our services and better support people who are in need. We need to get it right for the women of Scotland. Therefore, we want the Scottish Government to produce a dedicated action plan on mitigating the impact of the social security cuts on women. The plan should take stock of employability services, social care and childcare provision.
I am out of time, Presiding Officer. I look forward to hearing members’ speeches in the debate.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the 3rd Report, 2015 (Session 4) of the Welfare Reform Committee, Women and Social Security (SP Paper 773), including its recommendations to the Scottish and UK governments.
Many thanks. We are tight for time today. I call Margaret Burgess—you have nine minutes, please, minister.
15:14
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. Achieving real, meaningful gender equality is right at the heart of this Government’s core objectives. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that equality of opportunity is embedded in everything that we do.
I thank the Welfare Reform Committee and those who gave evidence to inform the findings in the report. It is a comprehensive report and makes for interesting, if disturbing, reading. I recollect that a number of thoughtful submissions were made following the call for evidence that gave some quite compelling insights into the issues around the benefits regime that women face.
The cabinet secretary has already published the Government’s response to the report recommendations. There is much that we are already taking forward in relation to the issues that have been identified. Unfortunately, there is also much that demonstrates why so many of us wanted full devolution of social security.
Rest assured that this Government will continue to make the case to the UK Government that its austerity regime is punishing some of our most vulnerable people. The chancellor’s U-turn on tax credits shows that the Scottish Government was right to keep up its continued and constant pressure right up to the last minute, highlighting the damage that would be inflicted by changing the tax credit system and calling on George Osborne to reverse his proposal, as the changes would have had a devastating impact on the incomes of thousands of low-paid families—as the Scottish Government has consistently said.
Although I welcome the capitulation of the chancellor on tax credits, the Tories’ ideologically driven austerity agenda is still on course, because make no mistake: the cuts are still coming. There will still be £12 billion-worth of cuts to the welfare budget over the next five years, around £1 million of which will land on low-income families and individuals in Scotland.
I want to touch on some of the specific recommendations made in the report and some of the actions that the Scottish Government is taking to address them. Our analysts estimate that the cumulative impact of welfare cuts in Scotland is some £6 billion. This year alone, there will be cuts of just under £2.5 billion here in Scotland. That demonstrates the scale of the challenge that we face, as the “Women and Social Security” report made clear.
On the impact of welfare cuts on disabled women, we absolutely agree with the committee on the importance of maintaining the existing budget. That is why the fiscal framework is so important to the negotiations between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. I would hope that, as John Swinney said earlier, we can unite across the chamber to ensure that the transfer of powers comes with the full budget.
We have invested nearly £300 million over three years in welfare mitigation funding. From fully mitigating the bedroom tax to providing funding for food banks, we have taken a range of actions to shelter people from the worst of the Tories’ damaging welfare policies.
We are already using the powers that we have to improve outcomes; as Clare Adamson said, we now have an opportunity through the new powers to make progress on providing a quality service that is more joined up and delivers a better service to women.
The committee, like the Scottish Government, has heard a wealth of evidence on issues to do with disabilities assessment. The Scottish Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that a Scottish social security system has at its heart a set of principles and values that ensure that people are treated with respect and dignity when applying for, being assessed for, and receiving disability-related benefits.
We will also ensure that people are provided with relevant information to make them aware of how the system will work for them and how long decisions will take. We will ensure that it is a fair, efficient and, importantly, person-centred system. That is how people will regain their trust in social security.
The Scottish Government has already announced measures that will help women, who are often carers. Earlier in the autumn, we announced that we would abolish the UK Government’s 84-day rule so that families who face higher living costs due to their child’s illness or disability will not be penalised when their child goes into hospital or has necessary medical treatment.
We have also said—as Clare Adamson alluded to—that carers will be placed at the heart of the devolved carers allowance and we will begin to increase the rate of the allowance to that of jobseekers allowance.
A number of recommendations in the committee’s report relate to universal credit flexibilities. We welcome some of the flexibilities given through the Scotland Bill and have already stated our commitment to use them to allow households to request that we pay rent directly to social landlords and to move away from monthly payments.
I know that many organisations that work with vulnerable women want to see a split-payment option. We are listening carefully to such input and will monitor how that could work in practice when universal credit is rolled out fully.
The report touched on employment and women in low-paid work. Progress is being made in a range of areas. The female employment rate in Scotland is 71.1 per cent, compared with the UK rate of 69 per cent. According to figures from Skills Development Scotland, the number of female modern apprentices has increased from 27 per cent in 2008-09 to 40 per cent in 2014-15.
Female learners also outnumber males at college, when measured by head count and full-time equivalent. More encouraging still, the number of women studying full-time courses has increased 15 per cent since 2006-07. The gender pay gap is lower in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom but much more can still be done. As part of the delivery of our economic strategy, we have established the fair work convention and launched the Scottish business pledge. Those will all help to make a meaningful difference and ensure appropriate representation of all women in the workplace.
The report recognised the difficulties that women face in going back to work and having caring responsibilities. The Scottish Government is committed to supporting and helping to deliver family-friendly, flexible working in Scotland. One step that the Scottish Government is taking is to increase the provision of childcare to improve outcomes for children and support more women back into work. By the end of the next session of Parliament, we will double the number of hours from 16 to 30 and we will look at having flexible hours for childcare.
We acknowledge the committee’s recommendation that employment programme support should include tailored English language support for refugees. That is important, particularly for women. It is recognised that women lose out in that respect because, while children can learn English at school and men can work, women experience various difficulties in getting a national insurance number. We have taken that on board with our current refugee programme and in the package that local authorities are building up for the refugees who we are taking in from the Syrian crisis. We will ensure that English language support is very much at the heart of that and that women are very much included in that support.
I want to say a bit about what Clare Adamson called “the S word”. It is a matter of genuine regret to me that conditionality and the benefit sanctions regime were not devolved as part of the Smith settlement. We continue to believe that the sanctions system is harsh and pushes people into crisis. It is clear that it needs wholesale reform. We remain of the view that an independent review of the sanctions regime is necessary.
I thank the Welfare Reform Committee again and welcome the report and today’s debate. The Scottish Government fully recognises the disproportionate impact that the UK Government’s welfare changes have had on women and children. In our engagement, we have worked closely with women’s groups to ensure that we understand the issues faced.
New powers on social security and employment provide us with an opportunity to have a Scottish social security system that delivers for women. Be assured that this Government will do everything that we can to make the most of that opportunity.
15:24
I start by thanking the Welfare Reform Committee for its wide-ranging and authoritative report on the impact on women of welfare reform. It strikes me that, if the UK Government had shown the same attention to the impact of its reforms, it might not have been so gleeful and gung-ho in pursuing the deep cuts to social security that will be felt by mothers, grandmothers, carers, low-paid workers, lone parents, victims of domestic abuse, refugee women, women suffering mental health problems, disabled women and of course children. All of that potential damage, often with multiple impacts on women, has been covered forensically and compassionately by the report’s authors. It is a damning indictment of the welfare policies of the UK Government and its lack of regard for women who need social security to support their families.
Of course, that is not the whole story, as two important developments have emerged since the committee’s good work. Just the day after the report was published, in July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer returned to the House of Commons with his emergency budget and announced £34 billion of additional cuts. The House of Commons library estimated that 70 per cent of those cuts will fall on women. We have yet to see whether the spending review that was announced yesterday will ameliorate or exacerbate this unfair targeting of women. Instead of using his new mandate to reduce the structural inequalities that have held many women back, the chancellor has made the decision to reinforce them. The Tory cry, “We’re all in this together” has never seemed so hollow, and it will not be recognised by women throughout the United Kingdom.
Fearing those cuts, the women of Scotland have been given some hope in other developments since the chancellor deepened his welfare cuts. The emergence of the Scotland Bill as a considerable transfer of powers from Westminster to Holyrood gives all of us who oppose these unfair welfare cuts an opportunity to do something about them. The top-up powers over welfare and the devolution of income tax mean that we can now match our rhetoric with action and design a fairer social security system that protects women.
Yes, the Scottish Government already has considerable influence over issues relating to equality, and the Welfare Reform Committee rightly points out several areas that need to be improved here and now. To his credit, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights has given the committee a very full response on behalf of the Scottish Government, which details some of the actions that are being taken to support women who are adversely affected by welfare reform. However, the real prize will be how the next Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament use the new powers over welfare to correct the wrong-headed approach by the Tory Government for the women of Scotland.
A good start would be for the Scottish Government to follow the Welfare Reform Committee’s suggestion and call a high-level summit on women’s social security. That suggestion is supported by Engender, Scottish Women’s Aid, the Scottish Refugee Council and Close the Gap. It would allow us to determine what strategic action is needed to redress the gender impact of welfare reform and public spending cuts. I hope that the minister will address that suggestion in her closing remarks.
As the report outlines, there is much work to do and the situation continues to escalate. Yesterday, the chancellor performed a spectacular and welcome U-turn on tax credits that will mean many working people being spared these unfair cuts. He also spared the blushes of the SNP members, who, when we debated the matter in the chamber two weeks ago, failed miserably to show any real appetite for reversing the proposed tax credit cuts when the powers over them come to Scotland.
Does the member think that Labour got its tactics right on this? Surely the best bet was to challenge the principle before worrying about where the money would come from to compensate.
My primary concern is not tactics but the working people who would be affected by the cuts to tax credits. The SNP members miserably failed to show any appetite to use the powers that are coming to the Scottish Parliament to mitigate or reverse those tax cuts. That was the shame of two weeks ago. I hope that they will not be found wanting as we look to address what is left of the UK Government’s welfare reform programme. As we saw yesterday, there is still a substantial and pernicious agenda—I know that the minister agrees with me on that.
Scottish politics will have changed for ever when the powers promised by the Smith commission come to Holyrood. No longer will the Scottish people indulge us when we complain about cuts to the most vulnerable in society; no longer will it be enough to join the chorus of despair at the Tory welfare reforms; no longer will we be protected from the hard choices that come from power and responsibility. The people—indeed, the women—of Scotland will instead look to us to act and use the new powers to build the fairer and more compassionate Scotland to which we aspire.
15:30
I welcome not only the opportunity to speak in today’s debate but the attention that the Welfare Reform Committee has given to the relationship between policy choices and the opportunity of women. Although I have little doubt that there will be areas of fairly robust disagreement, I am pleased that agreement was found on several areas in the report. That was reflected in the constructive contributions of my colleague and predecessor on the committee, Annabel Goldie, who will be speaking later.
Despite its title, it is worth considering that the committee’s report and recommendations go further than the direct impact of benefits. The report touches on a range of issues from the status of women in the workplace, as parents—potentially lone parents—or carers, and the interplay of benefits, employment, childcare, flexible working and a variety of other measures. That is to its credit. However, I cannot shake the feeling that some of the context of changes to social security was missed.
When my party came into government in 2010, there was a very reasonable view that social security spending was too high, that it created perverse disincentives to employment and that it was extremely complex. The previous Labour Government, for its part, adopted a range of policies under the banner of welfare reform. The problem was that its vision was often contradictory, short-termist and, on some occasions—as with the introduction of employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment—poorly implemented.
I have no reservation in stating my ambition to see a lower welfare society. The best and most sustainable way to achieve that is to increase employment and financial independence. In terms of the latter, we should look towards the twin aims of higher pay and lower tax.
Across the United Kingdom, we have a record level of women in employment, with almost a million more in work since the 2010 general election. That is the benefit of delivering on an economic plan. The UK’s recovery, with economic growth leading the advanced economies of the world, has been notable for being employment-heavy.
A few weeks ago, John Lamont’s colleague, Baroness Goldie, was in the House of Lords voting to get rid of tax credits, but the Scottish Tory party had wanted—apparently—to keep tax credits. What is the Tory party’s position? Where is it on the issue?
Yesterday, the chancellor clearly set out the position on tax credits. I will leave it to him and his explanation for that, rather than get involved and reopen that issue.
When we speak of a jobs miracle, it is not an idle boast. It can be seen in our constituencies and in every corner of the country. It is also not a dry statistic, but the reality of thousands more people with the security of a regular wage coming in. We know that many women are still more often found in low-paid, part-time and less secure employment. It is therefore welcome that we have seen greatest growth in full-time work and that wages are growing consistently while inflation remains effectively flat.
Part-time work will always afford a level of flexibility, and for many it will be a choice, but we should also be consider the level of those who are in part-time jobs and seek full-time work—those classed as involuntary part-time workers. Therefore, we should celebrate the considerable advances in childcare provision across the UK. All the main parties represented in this chamber have had a hand in placing that on the agenda, albeit with a number of important differences in our respective approaches. That solid groundwork allows a widening of opportunity and aspiration for a great many women. That is beneficial not only on an individual level but across our society. It is harnessing the skills and knowledge that have in the past been absent—often not by choice—from the labour market.
The committee is of course right to consider where our welfare system may fall short for women. The report suggests that women have, for example, a poorer experience of the work programme. Although it is essential to see more evidence of that, it is important information and the Scottish Government should keep it in mind when crafting its replacement programmes following the passage of the Scotland Bill.
We should also consider the policies that have benefited women. I have already spoken of childcare and will consider some other measures. The increase in the personal allowance this year has taken a further 430,000 people across the United Kingdom out of paying income tax altogether, two thirds of whom will be women. The national living wage, announced by the chancellor in the summer budget, will directly increase the income of around three working women in every 10. That not only is a pay rise but will have a positive impact on the gender pay gap as well as providing a great deal of support for many women who are in part-time work.
As the further powers that were promised in the Smith agreement make us think seriously about the future of social security in Scotland, the committee should continue to reflect on the impact on women. We must also work to build on the many significant successes that have already taken place.
We come to the open debate. We are tight for time, so speeches will be a maximum of six minutes.
15:36
I thank all the members of the Welfare Reform Committee and all the people who gave evidence, because the report was a pretty tough piece of work. It was the last inquiry that Michael McMahon carried out as convener of the committee. I pay tribute to him for his fairness in that role. Over the piece in the committee, it has been rare for there to be any disagreement—other than from one party. I will leave that there for now.
In the opening speech, Clare Adamson highlighted the fact that research by the House of Commons library states that, since 2010, £26 billion-worth of cuts have been made to benefits, tax credits, pay and pensions. Of that £26 billion, 85 per cent has been taken from women’s incomes. Therefore, I find it surprising that the Tory member of the committee dissented from the following sentence:
“The Committee believes that the cumulative impact of the reforms has had a damaging and disproportionate impact on women.”
How can anyone argue that the effect on women has not been disproportionate and damaging when research clearly shows that women have borne 85 per cent of the cuts?
We have heard that women are twice as dependent on social security as men are, with 20 per cent of women’s income coming from the benefits and tax credits system, compared with 10 per cent of men’s. Women have fewer financial assets and less access to occupational pensions than men do, and there are considerably more women than men in the lowest income decile in the UK. Moreover, 92 per cent of lone parents are women, and women make up 95 per cent of the lone parents who depend on income support. The statistics go on and on and clearly show that disproportionate impact.
The recommendations have not been touched on yet. One of the main ones concerns multiple impacts. Paragraph 29 of the report says:
“The Committee has been struck by the complexity of women’s lives in relation to the benefit system. Many don’t fit neatly into one administrative box and will be hit by reforms to carers, disability and children’s benefits. The Committee calls on the UK Government to urgently conduct a cumulative impact assessment of all the welfare reforms to identify the true impact on families and households.”
It is shocking that such an assessment has not been conducted. That shows clearly that the Conservative Government and its predecessor, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government, really did not give a monkey’s about the impact of their changes. Surely anyone who sought to make such major changes would want to know exactly what the impact would be.
John Lamont said that the aspiration in making those changes was to bring about higher pay and lower tax. In some ways, the Tories have achieved that—they have brought about higher pay and lower tax for the wealthiest in our society, but they have certainly not done so for folk who are struggling to make ends meet on a daily basis. It comes as no surprise to me that that is the direction in which the Conservatives have moved, because that has been their attitude throughout history—they have always favoured higher pay and lower tax for the rich and have never given a monkey’s about those folk who are suffering: the most vulnerable and the poorest in our society.
We need only look at some of the statistics that have come out in recent weeks, such as those from the Trussell Trust on the rise in the use of food banks, to realise the extent of the problem. When I have visited food banks, I have always seen women with young kids. It is horrific that people in work are having to rely on food banks. Although I welcome yesterday’s U-turn on tax credits, we must all remember that, for months, families in this country have been living in fear at the thought of losing those tax credits, which I believe is unacceptable.
If nothing else, we as a Parliament must ensure that the committee’s recommendation of a cumulative impact assessment of all the welfare reforms is carried out by the UK Government as soon as possible—
You must close, please.
Then, the UK Government might realise the horrors of the policies that it has implemented.
I reiterate that I can give members only up to six minutes.
15:42
I thank Kevin Stewart for the gracious comments that he made at the outset of his speech. I was a bit concerned that I would sound conceited when I say that I feel a degree of achievement and fulfilment from having been involved in generating the body of work that the Welfare Reform Committee produced in examining the impact of the current economic climate, which has been created by the Tory party’s welfare changes. The analysis that the committee has undertaken on matters such as the geographical and individual effects of benefit changes, the sanctions regime and the rise in food bank use will serve well not only the Parliament but the country whenever those issues are discussed.
The report that we are discussing might be the most important piece of work that the committee has so far embarked on. The statistics that concern women’s welfare issues in Scotland are staggering. The fact that women are twice as dependent on social security as men are, have fewer financial assets and make up 95 per cent of lone parents who depend on income support is absolutely shocking. That the gender pay gap sits at 32 per cent for part-time workers, which furthers the divide between the financial status of men and that of women, is embarrassing in this day and age.
Those statistics lead us inescapably to the conclusion that women are disproportionately affected by social security reforms, so any unfavourable change that is made to the system will unavoidably be multiplied in its impact on women. For example, in theory, universal credit exists to ensure that everyone in Scotland can easily retain a comfortable level of employment, but many organisations have referred to the disregard for second earners in earnings calculations and said that second earners, who are predominantly female, will have a disincentive to work, as a result of the gender barriers to employment being ignored. That formula must change so that women feel that credit is given to them for the work that they perform.
The Tory Government has evidently been blissfully unaware of the needs of women in regard to social security programmes, or it simply would not be making the changes that it is making. The committee’s report says:
“The Fawcett Society believes that the current job-seeking support system is too crude to be able to deal with the complexities in women’s lives.”
Jobseeking support is vital to ensure that every woman in Scotland has access to a job that is appropriate to her skill level.
The impact of the policies on disabled women and on victims of domestic violence is utterly unacceptable. Disabled women are far less likely to obtain full-time employment than non-disabled people are. Close the Gap’s estimation that
“The employment rate for disabled men is almost 90 per cent compared with only 40 per cent for disabled women”
is an indicator that should set alarm bells ringing at many levels of authority. Discrimination and incorrect preconceived notions about mental and physical capability are only two of the issues that women face day to day.
Similarly shocking information can be found when we look at domestic abuse statistics. Some 80 per cent of such cases involve a female victim. Attempting to leave an abusive partner is not only emotionally and physically challenging; it can be financially crippling. Scottish Women’s Aid has noted that two thirds of women lose their jobs because of domestic abuse-related issues. No woman should have to fear for her economic and professional wellbeing while experiencing such a heartbreaking situation.
I pay tribute in particular to Engender, which played a pivotal role in steering the committee towards initiating its inquiry and took us through the deliberations. More than any other group, it put together a number of recommendations that would help Scotland to move in the right direction on these and other issues.
First and foremost, the Scottish Government must recognise that the policies that are being introduced disproportionately impact on women at all intersections of identity. Therefore, any programme that is proposed or put into place must be beneficial to women, and an evaluation of the impact on women specifically must be completed.
Jobseeking support needs to be updated to include groups of women who often face additional persecution, such as refugees, disabled women, survivors of domestic abuse, those who live in rural areas, older women, lone mothers and carers. It is our duty as a legislative body to ensure that those women are given special attention, as their individual needs are too often overlooked.
Investment in employability services and jobcentres for women who are looking to get back into the labour market is simply money well spent for Scotland. Appropriate training and skilled staff with specialised knowledge should be in place to ensure that those programmes are used as effectively and efficiently as possible.
It would be remiss to have a conversation about women’s welfare without discussing the multiple identities that many women hold. As the committee succinctly stated in its report, many women
“don’t fit neatly into one administrative box and will be hit by reforms to carers, disability and children’s benefits.”
A one-size-fits-all policy will not work for the women of Scotland, who deserve more than that.
Some 51 per cent of the Scottish population are female. It is high time that we recognised the complex needs of women as a workforce and properly considered the impact on women of the welfare policies that we introduce. Scotland will have a chance to make a difference to those and many other issues with the new powers that we are to have. I hope that the report will help to guide the Parliament, others who will consider the issue and future Scottish Governments in the right direction.
15:48
I will raise the issue of carers and those for whom they care. Those two groups feature prominently in the committee’s report on women and social security. They are often interdependent groups who are extremely vulnerable, and they have suffered disproportionately from the cuts to social security and the reduced employment opportunities that have been caused by the economic downturn since 2008.
Unpaid carers save the Scottish economy £10.3 billion a year. As the report documents, 59 per cent of unpaid carers are women, and 74 per cent of those who receive carers allowance, which is awarded to those with the heaviest burden of caring responsibilities, are women.
Women are twice as likely as men are to give up work in order to care. As one of our witnesses, Helen Graham of Edinburgh Napier University, pointed out, much of the differential impact of welfare reform on women, which has been well illustrated by previous speakers, stems from the unequal distribution of caring responsibilities between men and women.
In preparing for the debate, I was reminded that in the very early days of our welfare state—indeed, before Beveridge—feminists struggled in a patriarchal society to get understanding and recognition of the huge amount of unpaid work that women do in the home. A leading suffragette and social reformer, Eleanor Rathbone, campaigned tirelessly to challenge that and eventually secured family allowances. To be politically acceptable, family allowances were presented as support for children—they evolved into child benefit—but Rathbone was primarily motivated by the need to recognise the unpaid work of women in the home and the huge personal sacrifices that poor women made in neglecting their health and wellbeing to prioritise those for whom they cared.
The direction of welfare reforms in the 21st century suggests that we are still fighting the same battles as Eleanor Rathbone and other feminists fought almost 100 years ago to get recognition for women’s unpaid work. In particular, the reforms and cuts do not adequately address the difficulties that are faced by those with caring responsibilities; indeed, they make life considerably more difficult for those people. Carers Scotland, Inclusion Scotland and individual witnesses expressed concern about the change from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, because the loss of financial support for the cared-for person has a considerable knock-on effect on the carer and on household income. The financial loss in Scotland from DLA and incapacity benefit reform is already estimated to be £600 million a year.
When a disabled person loses their benefits, their carer could be forced to claim jobseekers allowance. That introduces conditionality and the risk of sanctions. Let us remember that those with caring responsibilities are more likely to miss appointments, which invokes sanctions. Sanctions can put the whole family into crisis. They can lead to families running up rent arrears, which hastens eviction. Sanctions have a devastating effect on the ability not just to care but to live with a degree of dignity. I say to Ms Marra that sanctions are specifically excluded from the Scotland Bill, which she admires so much.
Once unpaid carers are on jobseekers allowance or in the work-related activity group of employment and support allowance, they can find themselves on compulsory employability programmes. As Close the Gap pointed out to the committee, those programmes force women into unsuitable gender-specific low-paid work, often on zero-hours contracts. Those zero-hours contract jobs often give women no opportunity to plan their lives and work around caring responsibilities. I point out to Ms Marra that addressing employability and zero-hours contracts remains reserved to Westminster.
Inclusion Scotland and Close the Gap highlighted the particular effect that the reforms at UK level are having on women who are disabled. In Scotland, 55 per cent of those who receive the higher-rate mobility component of DLA are women. However, we know that the DWP has a target of halving the number of DLA claimants who receive that higher-rate mobility payment when they are reassessed for PIP. That will have a disproportionate effect on women, particularly in Scotland.
For some of the people we spoke to, the fear of losing higher-rate mobility payments has caused anxiety. Disabled women already face a number of barriers to the job market. According to Close the Gap, the employment rate for disabled men is 90 per cent, compared with 40 per cent for disabled women.
The evidence that we took suggested that the minority of disabled women who can work—as a result of getting a Motability award, for example—could be further reduced because of DWP targets. Without a car or appropriate transport, they cannot work. One of our witnesses, Moira Sinclair, illustrated the absolute counterproductiveness of that. She said that, if she lost her Motability car, she would have to give up work, and the loss of income tax and national insurance contributions would be £11,500 a year. What better illustration is there of how ill thought out the cuts have been?
A higher proportion of women in Scotland claim DLA and employment and support allowance than in the UK as a whole. We must not forget that, despite their disabilities, many of those same women have caring responsibilities, either for children, a sick partner or a relative. That is why I certainly welcome the commitment from the First Minister to look at carers allowance once it is devolved and bring it up to the level of jobseekers allowance.
You must close, please.
I point out again that only 14 per cent of welfare spending is being devolved to Scotland under the Scotland Bill. When we have £12 billion of welfare cuts still to come and we do not know where from, I fear for women going forward.
I am sorry that there is not more time this afternoon. If members go over their time, that means that someone else will lose out.
15:55
Welfare reform at Westminster has achieved two things. First, it has deprived the most vulnerable and needy in our communities of the capacity to feed and clothe themselves without anxiety and has left them struggling with having to go to a food bank or not having a warm home—or sometimes any home at all. Secondly, it has aggravated existing inequality for women.
The term “welfare” is popular with the chancellor. I cannot help but feel that he quite likes the Dickensian idea of the worthy poor and the magnanimity of those who offer charity—that big society that the Tories talked about. We live in the 21st century, not the 19th century, and we ought to have moved on from workhouses and soup kitchens, but the gap between rich and poor extends even wider. While international investors pour their millions into expensive houses in Kensington and Chelsea, many of my constituents are struggling to find a few pounds to put into their gas meters.
Research provided to the committee by Child Poverty Action Group and others tells us time and again that most of the people who use food banks are in work or have had their benefit payments sanctioned for sometimes the most absurd of reasons. Citizens Advice Scotland told the committee of a case of a woman who was heading to the jobcentre when her four-year-old needed the toilet—those of us who have had kids have all been there; they want to try out every bathroom. She was sanctioned for 12 weeks for being 10 minutes late.
Barnardo’s told the committee:
“We are aware in Scotland that the current system of benefit sanctions is nowhere near fit for purpose. Sanctions are regularly applied unfairly, leaving people with little or no money at all for long periods. That causes severe hardship for many claimants and can have a very negative impact not only on their own health and wellbeing but that of their families too.”
It added that when universal credit is fully rolled out, women will probably lose out even more. Women will be dependent on the male breadwinner for the money to run the house, and if he has other ideas about how to spend that money, it will be the partners who have to try and sweep up the mess of debt, lack of food and probably a housing crisis.
CAS evidence to the committee emphasised that women use social services more than men do. The reasons are straightforward: they tend to be the carers of children, elderly and infirm parents, and relatives with special needs, including their own children, and many are in low-paid and part-time work. They have missed out on making a prosperous career for themselves because they have put their families first. They should not be sanctioned for that.
This reality is borne out by CAS, which has found that women are more likely to seek advice on housing benefit, working tax credits, child tax credits, child benefit and income support. Changes to those benefits will have a disproportionate impact on women. Housing benefit problems are among the most common benefit problems that women bring to CAS. This Scottish Government does everything it can to mitigate the horrendous impact of the bedroom tax, but there are limitations on what we are allowed to do.
An east of Scotland citizens advice bureau reported the case of a client who had high rent arrears. She thought that she was in receipt of housing benefit but discovered that that support had stopped, as she had working non-dependents—adult children—living with her. The client had an arrangement in place to pay the arrears and wanted to apply for a discretionary housing payment, but she was advised that she could not do that if she was not in receipt of housing benefit. The complications of the system are absolutely impenetrable.
Changes to iII-health and disability payments have had a hugely damaging impact already, and the situation is set to get worse. PIP will take tens of thousands out of what is currently the DLA system. CAS warned the committee that the endless confusion, delays and backlog will do nothing to support the introduction of PIP.
The concept that the state needs to help families on low incomes has vanished, yet pay rates are hopelessly inadequate. We have a moral and a financial duty to support people in need—for whatever reason—and we need the right framework in which to do that.
I do not accept the assumption of public school boys in London, who would never venture into a cut-price food store, that we can all make a decent income and support ourselves and our families. David Cameron once said that he was born with not one but two silver spoons in his mouth. I say, try a week living on benefits in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. Perhaps you could learn a lot.
The Scottish Government rightly highlights the huge contribution made by carers, most eloquently described by my colleague Joan McAlpine in her contribution.
And there’s the rub—or part of it. As CAS says:
“benefit conditionality remains reserved to the UK Government. The current draft of the Scotland Bill is silent on the matter and we do not yet know the extent to which Scottish employment services may be subject to that regime.”
The Institute of Fiscal Studies has just reported that 2.6 million working families will be £1,600 worse off as a result of the chancellor’s statement yesterday. What do we need? We need to face the facts. The current system discriminates against and fails women time and again: whether they are parents, carers, have a disability, are victims of domestic violence, have a long-term condition, are a refugee or have other cultural barriers, the system fails them. A future social security system for Scotland needs to have security at its heart. In order to get Britain working, we have to get Britain’s women working, and that will not happen under the present system.
16:01
I was a member of the Welfare Reform Committee when evidence was being taken on this topic in June and, during the evidence sessions, we learned that inequality for women still exists within our society and that the recent welfare reforms have increased that inequality. Women are disproportionately affected by the welfare reforms.
A recent report produced by Engender found that women are twice as dependent on social security as men, with 20 per cent of women’s income coming from the benefits and the tax credit system, compared with 10 per cent of men’s.
The committee heard evidence that tax credits provided essential support for women who work, and I had real fears that the tax credit reforms would add to the pressure on women. While I am delighted with George Osborne’s U-turn on tax credits, there is no doubt that the £12 billion cuts to welfare, which are still to come, will have an adverse effect on women and families over the coming years.
The Engender report found that 92 per cent of lone parents are women and women make up 95 per cent of lone parents dependent on Income Support. In committee meetings, I highlighted the shocking statistic from Inclusion Scotland that, at the time of giving evidence, sanctions for lone parents on JSA had risen from under 200 per month prior to 2008 to 4,700 per month. While I would like to say that that figure has fallen, I am afraid that it has not. Tory ministers seem to be in denial over the damage they are causing, especially to women and families, across the country.
I agree with the committee’s recommendation of a complete and comprehensive overview of the sanctions regime. It is clear to me that sanctions are not encouraging people to find work; rather, they seem to be demoralising people. The committee also found that many people do not even understand why they were sanctioned; you cannot promote a change in behaviour if a person does not know what they did wrong, or feels that they have been wrongly penalised.
For example, during evidence we heard the story of a lone parent, a mother of three, who went to sign on during the summer school holidays. She was sanctioned because she had to bring her children to her interview as she could not get childcare; the jobcentre officer said that, if she did not have childcare, that meant that she was not available for work. Can anyone honestly say that sanctioning that mother of three was the right thing to do? That is a case in which sanctions, in my view, have been wrongly applied; it might have been more helpful for jobcentre staff to assist the mother to find flexible and affordable childcare, rather than placing her and her children in further hardship and distress.
That example leads me to my next point: the importance of flexible and affordable childcare and the barriers that lack of childcare can present. Close the Gap have argued that childcare can be prohibitively expensive and that it is one of the most immediate barriers for women returning to work. The situation is worse for those on low pay, part-time hours or a zero-hours contract, as they might not know how much they will get paid that week or even when they need childcare, but they still have to pay to keep the child’s place open.
Provision of childcare is also a major issue, the Family and Childcare Trust’s “Childcare Costs Survey 2015” tells us that, in Scotland in 2014, only 23 per cent of local authorities reported sufficient childcare provision for parents who work full time and that, in 2015, that fell to 15 per cent. The figure for those with a disabled child was 18 per cent in 2014, and that fell dramatically to 7 per cent in 2015. For people in flexible working, the figures were even worse. In 2014, only 9 per cent of local authorities reported sufficient provision for them, and that fell to a shocking 4 per cent in 2015.
I acknowledge the work that the Scottish Government has done on access to childcare and provision, but the statistics show that not enough is being done to support that across our local authorities and that the situation is getting worse.
It is good that we have childcare places for all three to four-year-olds for up to 600 hours a year, but it is not so good that those places are not available in reality. That was further emphasised by One Parent Families Scotland, who said in evidence that:
“Lone parents are trapped in the sense that, when children are under five and the parent wants to access training and education, it is a challenge for them to get childcare … When the child reaches five, the doors to access training, education and higher education are closed, because the parent has to be available to work and to sign on.”—[Official Report, Welfare Reform Committee, 1 April 2014; c 1403.]
It is clear that, if we want to develop a transformational childcare policy, we need to do much more to tackle the lack of places and the lack of flexible, affordable wraparound childcare. That is one barrier that we know that we can break down, and we need to redouble our efforts to do so. With the further social security powers that are coming to this Parliament, it is clear that we can do things differently to improve the situation for women in Scotland.
You must close.
I welcome the minister saying that that will be considered and that dignity and respect will be at the centre of Scotland’s social security system.
On childcare, we have the power now. We just need the political will to create a fully transformational childcare system that works for everyone who needs it.
I give members fair warning: if you go over six minutes, I will have to cut you off.
16:07
I thank the committee for what I felt, as an outsider to the committee, was a wide-ranging and thorough report. It is good that new welfare powers are to be devolved to Scotland, but, of course, the powers are only part of the question. I have a couple of main questions: can we do better with the money that we have or are going to have; and do we need more money to create a better system?
From what I can see in the report, we could do better with the existing money. Recommendations such as moving away from monthly payments and single-household payments would be positive, as would, in some cases, making rent payments directly to the landlord.
Some of the quotes in paragraph 49 of the report, in the section that concerns universal credit, are telling and struck a chord with me and, I think, some of my constituents. The paragraph deals with the issue of monthly payments, saying:
“In relation to monthly payments, it was recognised that this is not the lived reality for many benefit claimants whose lives are not so ordered. It will also give rise to issues around budgeting and being ‘cash rich’ at the start of the month”.
It goes on to quote Morag Gillespie of Glasgow Caledonian University, who said:
“On the one hand, we are looking for people to live on quite a hand-to-mouth basis—lots of people still get paid and live from week to week or fortnight to fortnight—while, on the other, we almost want to pretend that they are white-collar workers with monthly salaries. Lots of people’s lives are not quite that tidy, and we need to accommodate the differences.”—[Official Report, Welfare Reform Committee, 19 May 2015; c 32.]
The committee and I certainly desire to accommodate the differences, but we do not see very much of that approach on the part of the DWP. Clearly, there can be a disconnect between the reality that many ordinary folk live and the theoretical existences that are imagined for them by some of the mandarins in Westminster.
The report highlights some particular issues of concern. The main one is sanctions, which I have been concerned about for a considerable length of time. I have always felt that, while the bedroom tax can reduce people’s income unjustifiably, sanctions can completely remove people’s income, which is so much worse.
One of the highlighted conclusions of the committee’s report, at paragraph 80, states:
“The Committee has previously reported on the impact of sanctions. It continues to urge the DWP to review how its policies are being applied”.
I broadly agree with that paragraph. However, I have some questions about paragraph 78, which states:
“The Committee has always agreed that some kind of conditionality is important.”
Surely we must accept that every single person in the UK or in Scotland deserves food and shelter as the absolute minimum. After all, we accept that prisoners are entitled to those things unconditionally, so everyone else should get at least the same. Every individual and every family should get a certain minimum income that is completely unconditional, no matter what they do or do not do.
Engender made that point in referring to a citizen’s income in its list of recommendations, and we need to think about that option as we move forward.
Employment is another topic that the report deals with. Paragraph 14 notes that universal credit was intended to encourage
“everyone to gain and sustain employment”.
However, I agree with those who argue that employment is not the right course for everyone. Like it or not, a number of women—as has been mentioned in previous speeches—are still the main carers for the older generation, the younger generation and others, as Christina McKelvie highlighted. We as a society benefit from those carers performing that key role, and in turn we need to accept that there are some people whom we should support, in the long term if necessary. They should not have to seek employment, even though, technically, they might be able to do so.
I am happy with the suggestion that we move towards using the term “social security” rather than “welfare”. On the subject of universal credit, things have moved on since the report was written and we welcome the relaxation of the proposed cuts. However, if the same overall savings are to be made in the welfare budget, there must be concerns about where that will hit.
Devolution of powers is a key element as we move forward. The fiscal framework, which members have mentioned, is meant to ensure fairness and no detriment to Westminster or Scotland as a result of powers being devolved. However, I remain sceptical about that, and the signs that we have seen so far have not been good.
The original theory was that whichever Parliament made changes would incur the subsequent costs. However, with the tax powers that we have so far, we have seen that Westminster has made the changes but this Parliament has had to write the cheque for all the costs. The precedents are not good, and that concerns me with regard to welfare. Whatever new powers we end up with, we will still face a limited budget. If we want a more generous welfare system, especially for women, the question is where the money will come from.
The obvious options are to reduce spending in some other area or perhaps to raise taxes. We are being more consensual today because we are debating a committee report, and I support that. However, we will have real choices to make as we go through the budget process. That will be challenging, and I call on all parties to be realistic. If they want more money in one place, they will have to tell us where it comes from.
16:13
The Welfare Reform Committee’s report on women and social security is surely one of the most important reports that the Parliament has produced in the current session. It is a substantial piece of work that highlights the impact of welfare reforms on women and puts on record—possibly for the first time in one document—how many of those changes have served to aggravate existing inequalities that women experience.
There are numerous examples in the report that illustrate those inequalities across the whole spectrum of welfare reforms. Covering universal credit, the sanctions regime and the impact on women carers and single parents, the report shows how women in particular are affected as a result of the welfare reform agenda.
One of the most startling figures to come to light—as several members have mentioned—comes from the House of Commons library. Since the reforms began in 2010, some £26 billion-worth of cuts have been made, and a staggering £22 billion of that has been taken from women’s income.
The committee has made a large number of recommendations for both the Scottish and UK Governments to consider, and I am pleased to read the detailed comments from the Scottish Government indicating that work is already under way to bring about the changes requested. I am not aware whether the UK Government has responded to the report as yet. We should pay tribute to committee members, past and present, to all those who gave evidence and to the clerks for putting the report together.
Some concerns were raised about universal credit and the system of single monthly payments, and the issue of a person in the household—usually the male—being the recipient of the payments, including those intended to cover things such as rent. The worry is that that makes it much more difficult for a woman to negotiate and manage the household income in terms of family priorities. The Scottish Government’s response supports a move to twice-monthly payments and direct payments to landlords in order to remove some of the concerns on the matter. People will have the choice of how they want to manage their account, giving them more control of their own affairs.
In addition, women are far more likely to earn less than their male partners and therefore to be regarded as the second earner. Professor Diane Elson commented that, when earnings disregards and tapers are taken into account, it is not financially worth while for many women to take on a job at all. The committee has asked the UK Government to re-examine the allowances for second earners to overcome that problem, which greatly affects the ability of women to enter the labour market.
One area where the committee heard about the severe negative impact, particularly on women, is in relation to sanctions. One of the most common problems was when appointments are delayed or cancelled by jobcentres and women in particular are unable to attend on the rescheduled dates due to childcare issues or the unaffordability of transport costs for repeat journeys. The Scottish Women’s Convention noted the hypocrisy of the DWP, because if it makes errors and causes delays, there is no impact, but if a person makes a mistake, it usually leads to a sanction being imposed.
Sanctions and delays in benefit payments are one of the main causes of people being driven to food banks in order to survive. I have seen countless constituents in my Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley constituency coming to food banks citing both those reasons as being the main factor in their being there. The effectiveness of sanctions has been questioned. Howard Reed from Landman Economics told the committee that there was no relationship between sanctions and employment levels, and that areas where sanctions had been employed with greater “gusto”, as he put it, showed employment rates that were slightly lower. He also informed the committee that there is no UK Government data on the impact that sanctions have on people and families as a whole. The committee therefore called on the UK Government to conduct an independent review of the sanctions process to establish the impact that sanctions are having and whether they help people into work, and to revise the appeals process so that it can be carried out much more quickly.
One of the biggest barriers to women taking up employment is finding suitable and affordable childcare. Carers Scotland said that women are four times as likely as men to have given up work because of multiple caring duties and that 85 per cent of people who care for children and an adult—sometimes called sandwich carers—are also women. As members will know, the Scottish Government will double childcare provision to about 30 hours per week—on a flexible basis, too—by the end of the next session of Parliament. Barnardo’s commented that the flexible and wraparound nature of that childcare is just as important as the funding itself. That should have a hugely positive impact on the ability of women—and men—to get into work and maintain their family duties and obligations.
I will just say a few words in support of lone-parent women. We note in the report that 92 per cent of single parents are women, which means that we have more than 150,000 single-parent women in Scotland. There are 12 safeguards that the DWP is supposed to apply to protect lone parents from having their circumstances worsened. However, we heard from the Single Parent Action Network that only a quarter of the women affected have agreements with their local jobcentres allowing them to restrict their job searches to school hours, which is one of the 12 safeguards that are particularly important for women.
The impact of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 on women in Scotland is particularly unfair. I know that the Scottish Government is working to mitigate much of that as far as it can, spending some £300 million already in undoing the damage that would have been done to thousands of women in Scotland had it not acted. However, it is not all about money; it is also about restoring a sense of fairness, dignity and respect at the heart of the system so that it values its citizens and offers genuine equality for Scotland’s women. I hope that the new Scottish social security system will begin to put in place such a framework. Again, I commend the work of the committee in bringing this report to the Parliament.
16:19
I begin by thanking all members of the Welfare Reform Committee for their work on the report. We all know that the recession has had a devastating effect on Scotland and the whole of the UK, but it has particularly affected certain groups—the young, disabled people and women. It has affected their prosperity and their sense of wellbeing. At that difficult time, instead of our welfare system offering relief and support to women across Scotland, the welfare reforms have made the situation more stressful. The system has disproportionately failed vulnerable people and it has disproportionately failed women in our society.
The committee has done a fantastic job of illuminating the failings of the system. For example, the report on sanctions pointed out that the system has led to a climate of fear rather than encouraging people back into work and the report on food banks revealed the direct correlation between the use of food banks and the welfare reform programme. In addition, it was the research from the committee that illuminated the fact that some 80 per cent of households affected by the bedroom tax contain a disabled adult.
The report that we are discussing today very much continues in that powerful vein. I was struck by some of the statistics in it and I think that they are worth repeating. Colleagues have already mentioned this, but since 2010 some £26 billion-worth of cuts have been made to benefits, tax credits, pay and pensions and 85 per cent of that has been taken from women’s incomes. That is a staggeringly disproportionate impact on women.
The committee went on to quote figures from Engender, Close the Gap and many others, revealing that women are twice as dependent on the social security system as men, they have fewer financial assets and they are far more likely to be lone parents and carers.
It is right that we make common cause across the Parliament on the issue. Austerity and the welfare reform programme are bad for our economy and bad for the prosperity of individuals and communities. This is not, frankly, the kind of society that many of us wish to see. We want to see an end to punitive sanctions, to discrimination and to blaming people who are in need for their misfortune.
However, I hope that, this afternoon, we will do more than that. If all that we do is to blame the Conservatives and the UK Government, we will not be facing up to our responsibilities, nor will we be using the powers that are at our disposal for the purpose that I believe they were intended to have.
Like many members, I lived through the Thatcher years and I was frustrated by the fact that we would elect representatives of one particular party in Scotland and a party of a different hue would be elected in another part of the UK, but the answer to that is the Scottish Parliament. It is difficult to imagine the poll tax being introduced now that we have the Scottish Parliament, and the committee’s work has revealed that the UK Government cannot impose reforms on this country with us being powerless to do anything about it. The bedroom tax in particular has revealed that. In fact, the committee’s analysis showed that our mitigation of the bedroom tax particularly benefited women in Scotland.
I want to give a couple of examples. First, I want to comment on Motability. I do not know whether other members have recently received a letter from Motability, but changes are under way and a transition scheme is in place. As most members will know, the Motability scheme allows disabled people to lease a new car, scooter or powered wheelchair by exchanging their Government-funded Motability allowance. People qualify if they get the higher-rate mobility component under DLA or the new enhanced rate under PIP.
I made some inquiries and I discovered that 519 people in my Eastwood constituency use the Motability scheme, and 1,700 people across East Renfrewshire. I asked how many are expected to lose their allowance. Motability could not say exactly, but it said that, of the people who have been reassessed so far, 12,300 have been awarded the same level of support and retained membership of the scheme but 9,000 have lost eligibility. That is almost 40 per cent. A huge number of people have lost out on the Motability allowance. Disability News Service has pointed out that more than 100 people a week are losing their Motability vehicles because of the change from DLA to PIP.
I was very struck by what the committee’s report had to say about the impact of that on disabled women. According to Close the Gap, disabled women are particularly affected by social security reform, because they are far less likely to be in full-time employment than non-disabled people. Moreover, Close the Gap said that the employment rate for disabled men is almost 90 per cent, compared with only 40 per cent for disabled women.
Inclusion Scotland said in its written evidence to the committee that in Scotland more than 55 per cent of people in receipt of the higher-rate mobility component—in other words, the people who qualify for a Motability car—are women, and concluded that women are therefore far more likely to lose out.
Why does that matter? I think that we all know that the point of welfare reform is to encourage people to access work, and the whole point of Motability is to enable people to access work and childcare.
You need to draw to a close.
Instead of helping women to access work, the reforms will hurt women. In its response to the committee’s report, the Scottish Government did not say much about the issue, other than that it will “work with Motability”. I ask the minister to expand on that, in particular—
You must close, please.
In particular, I ask the minister to look at the concessionary travel scheme, which currently applies only to the higher-rate mobility component and not to the lower rate.
Many thanks. I call Christian Allard—I am afraid that I can give you only five minutes now. Sorry.
16:25
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have enough material for 20 minutes, but I will speak for only five.
I thank Ken Macintosh, who struck the right tone when he said that the poll tax and the bedroom tax would never have been introduced by the Scottish Parliament. We are in a different place, here in Scotland.
That brings me to Baroness Goldie, who will close the debate for the Conservatives. We have a Dr Who in the chamber—someone who, every week or so, can time travel, leaving this Parliament in modern, 21st century Scotland to go back one, two or even three centuries to the House of Lords at Westminster. Maybe Baroness Goldie, who is a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, will enlighten us as to why her party at Westminster is targeting the poorest of the poor.
I will not give credit to Mr Osborne. A lot of members suggested that he is somehow targeting women, but I do not think that that is the case. He could not care less whether he targets women or men; what he cares about is targeting the poor. Maybe Baroness Goldie will tell us what that will do for equal opportunities in Scotland and throughout the UK, given that, as we know, most of the poorest people in society are women. Indeed, the poorest among the poorest in our society are women—that is the aggravating factor. Why does Baroness Goldie not speak to someone at Westminster—whoever she needs to speak to—to tell them that welfare cuts that target the poor will stop progress to equality between men and women in Scotland?
I will go even further. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament are making as much effort as they can do to narrow the gap, but what is happening at Westminster in the House of Lords and the House of Commons—two or three centuries away, although it takes only a day to get there, of course—is affecting what we do here. We might manage only to keep the gap as it is. Let us not forget that all the efforts of the Scottish Government and Parliament, which we heard about—and I thank the committee for pointing out so much of what we do—will be affected.
Let us quantify that. I have read a lot of reports on the matter, including the joint report “A Widening Gap: Women and Welfare Reform” by Engender, the Scottish Refugee Council, Scottish Women’s Aid, Close the Gap, and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, to which the committee referred in its report. In the joint report, we were reminded:
“Women did not enjoy equality with men in Scotland before welfare reform.”
That is true; they did not, and they do not. The issue is how we narrow the gap.
I thought a lot about that when the Equal Opportunities Committee did our “Women and Work” report about equal opportunities for women at work. I think that we need to go a lot further than this; we need to talk about men at home. What do I mean by men at home? I am talking about social security, of course—that is what it is all about. It is about how we help the people who care for children at home. How can we make sure that we are helping the carers, the people who are not at work full time, the people who are on low pay or who only work part time—the people who have those incredible zero-hours contracts? How can we help those people so that we can make sure that we have a gender balance? We will never have a gender balance if we do not sort out that problem.
I congratulate the Scottish Government and the committee on the language that they have used, because we should not talk about welfare; we should talk about social security. Similarly, we should not talk about benefits or allowances; we should talk about entitlements. It is important that we change our language when we talk about the issue. Perhaps more important than ever, let us talk about parenting as opposed to talking about gender difference.
16:31
This has been an interesting debate and there have been some genuinely thoughtful contributions. Let me respond to Monsieur Allard, who raised an important point—it is a point about political debate. In response to his question, my party, in government, has had to deal with an economic challenge. It is interesting that no one has disputed the need to reform the welfare system—that is what I find fascinating.
I hear a lot of criticism of what my party has done in government—that is perhaps predictable. I hear very little about what my political opponents would offer by way of substitute, but perhaps we will get more of that as time proceeds.
Will the member take an intervention?
Forgive me—I really need to make progress.
By way of context for all this, in comparison with 2010, there are more than 170,000 more people in jobs in Scotland, and more than 2 million people getting more of their pay back at the end of the week because of tax cuts—I do not hear Mr Allard referring to that.
In his speech, my colleague John Lamont usefully placed some of the changes to social security in context and outlined a number of the lessons to be taken forward in the committee’s current work. This is undoubtedly an important period in the timeline of the social security system—or welfare state—in Scotland.
We have seen extensive reforms at the UK level, but interestingly, from my perspective, there is now a real impetus for this Parliament to consider our own approach to social security, and not least the position of women within it.
I served on the committee during the time of the inquiry and I think that the committee report produced a number of important findings, conclusions and recommendations. Yes, I dissented from some of them, either where they were in conflict with my party’s policy—I think that in Scotland, we are still allowed to have political disagreements—or where I disagreed with the analysis.
However, the inquiry report makes some important comments on aspects of universal credit. Although I indicated my dissent to paragraph 13, members might be pleased to hear that I have repented—I have changed my mind; I think that there is a need for greater flexibility and that it would be desirable.
On sanctions, I think that paragraphs 16 and 17 are powerful. I managed to clarify, despite what one or two committee members have indicated, that I understand that no political party supports the principle of the abolition of conditionality. I understand that the Scottish National Party currently supports a moratorium in applying it, but if people believe in the principle of a system and are not in agreement with how it is being implemented, they have to come up with their own suggestions on how they think it should be improved.
Having said that, I think that sanctions are an important area, and that more and better information needs to be provided to claimants. I entirely agree that it is completely unacceptable to impose sanctions in circumstances where there has been a genuine oversight or an unavoidable failure to attend a meeting, perhaps due to a carer’s responsibility or obligation.
The report also contains constructive comments on a whole range of issues, including employment and jobseeking support, carers, lone parents and women who are vulnerable for a variety of reasons—and, of course, the need to have a stronger link between the social security system and GIRFEC.
An important range of powers is coming to this Parliament as a result of the Smith agreement. I was privileged to be part of that process. What encourages me is that we are starting to see movement towards policy from the Scottish Government on those matters: there is one area where we have detail. This may stun the minister, but I especially commend the Scottish Government for its approach in that respect. Almost three quarters of those in receipt of carers allowance are women, and those individuals are a vital part of our society. Their fantastic work is estimated to be saving the NHS and social care services billions of pounds. Joan McAlpine spoke eloquently about that. I therefore welcome the First Minister’s statement that she will support raising carers allowance to the level of jobseekers allowance, which will give a real boost to those extremely hard-working people. Indeed, I welcomed that policy when my own party leader, Ruth Davidson, proposed it just a fortnight earlier at my party’s conference.
It is worrying that, over the past quarter, there has been a decline in the rate of women in employment in Scotland. The trend has gone in the opposite direction throughout the UK as a whole. While that trend has only recently emerged, we should all be concerned about its potential to grow into a longer-term issue. I hope that the minister will be able to address that, and will give the Scottish Government’s analysis of that trend and set out proposals to address it.
I, too, welcome the chancellor’s announcement on tax credits yesterday. I had some concerns, and I was public about those concerns and wrote to the chancellor to express them. I am pleased that that decision has been made. The committee’s conclusions on tax credits were balanced. It rightly identified some issues, which I hope can be addressed as tax credits are brought into the structure of universal credit.
For the first time in the history of this Parliament, our debates on social security are moving on from simply offering a view on the decisions of the UK Government. Importantly, that was recognised by some contributors, not least John Mason, Willie Coffey and Ken Macintosh. These things matter. I may not have agreed with every conclusion in the committee’s report, but it is a substantial body of work and a very useful step in ensuring that we have a Scottish welfare system.
16:37
Mr Allard spoke about someone from another Parliament time travelling here and ending up in this one. I commend him for his impeccable timing because, just as he said that, James T Kirk himself walked into the chamber, following the unveiling of his new, very regal portrait.
Mr Findlay, we try to avoid nicknames in the chamber.
I am sure that SNP members will be buying their copy to go above the fireplace for Christmas.
The report was written before I became a member of the Welfare Reform Committee, and I commend the committee for it and concur with the views expressed in it, especially in relation to the way in which welfare cuts have affected women. Many members, including Michael McMahon, Joan McAlpine and Ken Macintosh, have commented on the shocking statistics relating to these so-called reforms. They are right to do so, because women are bearing the brunt of the Tory Government’s all-out attack on working people. Members have mentioned that 85 per cent of Osborne’s social security cuts affect women’s incomes. The important Engender report, which has contributed a great deal to the debate, makes grim reading. It shows that women are twice as dependent as men on tax credits and benefits. Women are in the lowest paid, most insecure work—work that is often part time or zero hours. Women are much more likely to be carers and to have to cut their hours or give up work altogether to take up their caring role. This is at a time of increasing pressure on household budgets and, all the while, the gender pay gap shows little sign of closing.
I have said for some time that Osborne and Cameron are engaged in a class war, but the report makes it crystal clear that it is a gender war, too. Osborne and Cameron’s so-called reforms promote the idea that the benefits budget, funds for public services and the country’s debt are all the fault of the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, the low paid and single parents. Several people have mentioned single parents, 92 per cent of whom are women—quite a startling statistic.
I hear what the member says, but does he not acknowledge that, in Scotland, we have more women in employment than we have ever had before, which is positive progress?
Of course, we would all welcome more women—indeed, anyone—getting into work, but if that work is typified by low pay and zero-hours contracts it is hardly a basis on which they can build security for themselves and their families. That is the problem with the jobs that are coming to Scotland.
I welcome the U-turn on tax credits. I even welcome Ms Goldie’s U-turn on tax credits. She was in the House of Lords a couple of weeks ago, voting to abolish them. Now, she is repentant, and I welcome the repentant sinner. The fact that tax credits will not be cut is a good thing, irrespective of who takes the credit for it, because that money is going back into the pockets of working people.
The whole agenda around the social security system sees the media enthusiastically embracing the negative view of the system, buoyed by horrendous programmes such as “Benefits Street” and screaming tabloid headlines about the evils of single parents. I find all that utterly disgusting. According to the DWP’s own figures, the reality is that just 2 per cent of the entire welfare budget is spent on unemployment benefits and only 18 per cent is spent on family benefits such as tax credits. By contrast, 42 per cent is spent on pensions. However, such facts do not fit with the prevailing narrative.
Against that backdrop and the backdrop of more cuts coming—another £12 billion of cuts were announced yesterday—and in the frenzied negative atmosphere that exists around the whole system, we are challenged with designing the social security system of the future. The first and central principle must be that it is a humane system that treats people with dignity and respect and which assists them to make the full contribution to our society that we all want to see. That has been a constant theme in discussions about the failings of the current social security system. A few weeks ago, women told us about the lack of understanding of their situation—whether they have a mental health condition, a caring responsibility or a training need. They also spoke of the failure of the work programme to recognise the value of self-help and voluntary work.
The main problem for women and men, young and old, is the lack of good-quality, full-time, permanent jobs in the economy, rather than any issues to do with employability. We heard from people who appear, more often than not, to be hindered by the system rather than helped by it. We heard of a culture of benefits and employability that seems to lack empathy and understanding. That is a criticism not of the people who work in the system, who are under huge pressure, but of the culture that is led from numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street and which permeates down to the front line.
On a range of other issues, such as the impacts on carers and the cared for, women fleeing violence, refugees, children and those with mental health issues, I share the committee’s concerns. We have the opportunity to address those issues with the new welfare powers and we should take that opportunity.
16:43
This has been a useful debate that has included a number of excellent speeches from members across the chamber. I will touch on some shortly and respond to them.
Again, I thank the committee and the organisations that contributed to the report, “Women and Social Security”, which has helped us all to understand how people really feel about the current welfare system and how it treats them. I pay tribute to the work that Michael McMahon did on the report and on previous committee reports; he was there at the setting up of the committee, which has produced a number of useful reports that have helped the Government to take things forward.
As I said in my opening remarks, the Government is absolutely committed to removing barriers that women face. We are already taking a number of actions to support that goal, but we are faced with the reality that our budget is being cut by a UK Government that takes a wholly different ideological approach to the one that we want to take.
Yesterday’s news on tax credits was welcome, but as the Poverty Alliance and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations have pointed out—as have many members today—some £12 billion will still be taken from the pockets of some of the poorest people in society, and many of the cuts will disproportionately affect women and children.
Even worse is that the cuts have the potential to impact on the progress that we have made in Scotland. The “Annual Report on the Child Poverty Strategy for Scotland—October 2015” shows that we are, using the powers that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, making progress on some of the main drivers that cause child poverty. However, progress is at risk from UK Government measures that will hit thousands of low-income working families.
Yesterday, Peter Kelly from the Poverty Alliance said that the
“announcement on tax credits is welcome, but families still remain under financial pressure.
Families will still lose the family element of tax credit, and working-age benefits remain frozen until the end of this parliament.
We are now at the stage where there is nothing to cut. We are hurting the most vulnerable in our society.”
I entirely agree.
I will now respond to some of the points that were made in the debate. Jenny Marra talked about the need for a summit on women’s issues in social security. We are happy to consider that suggestion—the issue is certainly on our agenda, and we are progressing it. A range of discussions have taken place through our “Creating a Fairer Scotland: What Matters to You?” conversations. Organisations including Engender, the Scottish Refugee Council and the Scottish Women’s Convention have been involved.
Michael McMahon talked about the equality impact assessment and women. The cabinet secretary has responded on that point and confirmed that gender, including maternity and pregnancy issues, is part of the assessment process. Those areas will certainly be looked at in any system that we put together.
A number of members talked about carers and welcomed what the Scottish Government is doing for carers and our proposals for the carer’s allowance. It is interesting that Annabel Goldie supports that approach here in Scotland; I just wish that her party would support our position and apply it across the UK, so that we do not have to use our depleting budget to mitigate the impact of cuts.
A number of members spoke about sanctions. There has been no disagreement in what has been said in that regard or about their impact. Joan McAlpine expressed the matter well; she referred to carers having been forced into work because, for example, the person for whom they are caring has lost their benefit. That has such an impact on the carer: at a tremendously emotional and difficult time, a family may be faced with losing their only income and are sometimes, consequently, being forced to use food banks.
Margaret McDougall and Willie Coffey spoke about childcare, and both acknowledged what the Scottish Government is doing in that area. We are working hard with local authorities and we are committed to providing 600 hours of childcare, which will increase in the future, as well as to building in the flexibility that we know is required. In that vein, we are also committed to working with employers and their representative organisations to look at flexibility in the workplace, because we know that that will help women and get them back into work.
Kevin Stewart talked about the need for the UK Government to carry out a cumulative impact assessment on all the welfare reforms and benefit cuts. I, too, want to see exactly what the cumulative impact is.
Ken Macintosh talked about Motability. We recognise the trust that people place in the Motability scheme. When people get a Motability vehicle, it gets them out, gives them a life and gets them to contribute to society.
On people’s concerns about DLA changing over to PIP, the Scottish Government’s position is clear: we have asked for PIP’s roll out to be halted and for the budget to remain the same. The fiscal framework is important in that regard. I think that we all agree that we need to get that right for Scotland because we do not want people to be worse off.
A number of other contributions were made about sanctions. Christian Allard mentioned how women were not equal before the welfare reforms and how the reforms have simply increased their inequality in society.
I will speak about some of the more meaningful actions that the Government has taken. We have a strong record on taking action to support women and families, and we support a range of gender organisations to the tune of almost £900,000. More widely, our current and planned funding will result in investment of about £296 million over the period 2013-14 to 2015-16. A significant part of that funding will go on helping to support women’s groups. I mentioned earlier some of the action that we have already taken under existing powers, such as the mitigation of the bedroom tax and the creation of the Scottish welfare fund.
More women get community care grants than men.
You must close, minister.
I am sorry—are you telling me to wind up, Presiding Officer?
I am afraid that you have to close. Your time is up, minister.
Okay.
As I said before, the Scottish Government is fully committed to working co-operatively with stakeholders and members from across the chamber so that we can achieve a system that better suits women and the people of Scotland.
16:50
I join Kevin Stewart and the minister in thanking Michael McMahon for his sterling work as convener of the Welfare Reform Committee. He helped to shape the influence that that committee has had over a long period. From the speeches that have been made, I know that the committee members have valued his input.
It has been a good debate, but we would expect that. There has been a lot of consensus and—I do not mean this as a criticism—much of what was said echoed what Clare Adamson said in her opening speech and reinforced the points that she ably made.
What is happening to women in the social security system, not only in Scotland but throughout the UK, is stark. It is hard to understand the scale of it. We keep saying that we take pride in the fact that, in 21st century Scotland and Britain, there is equality before the law. Women are now treated equally and there is no discrimination. That is fine, but it is true only up to a point. When we start to consider the reality that Clare Adamson and other speakers articulated, we see that there is still discrimination and we are not all equal.
It is hard to get our heads around the scale of it: 85 per cent of welfare cuts since 2010 have been to women’s income. If we were to pass a law to introduce that level of discrimination, there would be howls of outrage. However, somehow, there is complacency that the decisions that result in 85 per cent of cuts impacting on women are acceptable. It is, to be frank, unacceptable. No decent society should tolerate that kind of discrimination. Yes, we are all equal before the law and, no doubt, the benefits system is supposed to treat women equally in theory but, as speaker after speaker pointed out, it is women who bear the burden of the child rearing, have to take time off work to look after the child when the child is sick and often have to give up their employment to look after children.
I warn the chamber that, by saying too often that it is women who do the childcare, have the low-paid jobs and have to go home to look after the children who are sick, we may be reinforcing a stereotype and not encouraging men to do that.
If the reality is that women do that, it would be absurd not to mention it in case we reinforced it. To be frank, the more we say it, the more we challenge it. It is unacceptable, and being silent and hiding from it will not change things.
In many respects, it is women who have to be the prime carer; 74 per cent of people on carers allowance are women and 95 per cent of lone parents on benefits are women. Lone parents are more likely to be sanctioned than other claimants. Neil Findlay said that this was not just a class war but a gender war, and there is some truth in that. The committee started off by looking at social security from a gender perspective, but it quickly came to the conclusion that it is a gender issue. It is women who are bearing the brunt of the cuts that are being made in the social security system, and that is just unacceptable.
The fact that so many members have repeated much of what Clare Adamson said reflects the reality that they are finding expressed in their constituency postbags and the reality of their casework. Margaret Burgess was quite right to say that the Scottish Government should be committed to a family-friendly, flexible society but, as Jenny Marra said, the claim that we are all in this together is belied by the facts. That is just not true. We are not all in this together. I say to Christian Allard that women are bearing the burden of childcare, the burden of being responsible for providing care and the burden of the cuts to social security.
As Jenny Marra suggested—I hope that the committee would back this—the Government should call a high-level summit to address the gender impacts of the cuts. In its report, the committee refers to the evidence that it took from a number of organisations on the need to come together.
Michael McMahon said that women are disproportionately affected by welfare reform, but he also pointed to the complexity of women’s lives, which speaker after speaker mentioned. He paid tribute to the contribution of Engender and talked about the issue of multiple identities. Despite being carers, having disabilities and looking after our children, women make up 51 per cent of the workforce. Annabel Goldie suggested that the fact that so many women are back in the workforce is something to be proud of. Of course it is, as Neil Findlay said, but when women are coming into the workforce on the minimum wage, on zero-hours contracts and without the security of long-term employment, and when they are the ones who are most likely to be paid off whenever there is a problem, there is still something to worry about.
It is not a case of rejoicing about the number of women who come into the Scottish Parliament or who go to Westminster to take up well-paid jobs with good pensions; it is a case of worrying about the women in my constituency in places such as Linwood, Barrhead, Johnstone and Neilston who do not know from week to week what their income is likely to be or what the future is likely to hold for them. As John Mason said, saying to them that they need to go out to work is not necessarily the moral or right thing to do, because I repeat that some women still have to look after the children or someone with a disability. To say to such women, who are often already on a low household income, that they need to go out and work and enjoy the dignity and respect that work brings is, frankly, to be inhumane to those women, given the circumstances that they are having to cope with in their household, day in and day out. We should be applauding and encouraging them and, as John Mason and others said, supporting them for doing the job that otherwise would not be done in caring for those who are often ignored and overlooked. There are still double standards in our country, and John Mason was right to say that we need to nail the issue about forcing people into employment.
Willie Coffey again mentioned that women are more likely to have to give up work because of carer duties, and he made the link between food banks and sanctions.
You should conclude, Mr Henry.
Certainly, Presiding Officer.
That issue has come out time and again.
Ken Macintosh made an interesting point about Motability that needs to be explored further.
It is all right moaning and groaning about how bad things are, but I hope that the Parliament and the Scottish Government will take what the committee has said to form the basis of a future that is totally different from what exists just now.
Previous
Scotland’s Public Finances (Update)Next
Decision Time