Child Benefit
The first item of business this afternoon is a debate on motion S4M-05521, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on child benefit. I call Nicola Sturgeon to speak to and move the motion.
I very much welcome this opportunity for the Parliament to debate recent changes to child benefit and the impact that the changes, together with wider welfare and benefit changes, will have on women, children and families right across Scotland. I very much hope that whatever else we may disagree on in the chamber, we will all be able to agree that it is simply unacceptable—indeed, I would describe it as morally unacceptable—that almost one in five children in our rich country lives in poverty and that those in the poorest three income deciles share just 14 per cent of our collective income. It is incumbent on us all—the Government and everybody in the Parliament—to address that to the best of our ability. On behalf of the Government, I accept unreservedly our responsibility in that regard.
Tackling those levels of poverty and inequality is a central priority for the Scottish Government and, as I have just said, it should be a driving priority for all of us in Scotland. Indeed, it is, perhaps above all else, my desire to see greater equality, fairness and social justice that will lead me next year, when faced with the excellent question “Should Scotland be an independent country?”, to vote yes.
Under the Westminster Government, we are part of the fourth most unequal society in the developed world. I do not believe that we should settle for that, because that is not as good as it gets. I believe that Scotland can and should do better. It is that passionate belief that drives my support for Scotland being an independent country. I believe that not just because greater equality will enhance the quality of life for individuals in Scotland, although it will undoubtedly do that, but because a wealth of international evidence shows that countries that achieve greater social equality and social justice also perform better in economic terms.
Social justice leads to social cohesion, which is the building block of economic success. That is why our Government’s economic strategy and national performance framework includes cohesion and solidarity targets that are designed to increase incomes and reduce the disparity between different sections of our society.
While we continue to pursue that approach in Scotland, the United Kingdom Government, as we all know, is implementing far-reaching changes and significant spending reductions across the welfare system. I believe that the package of welfare cuts being introduced by the UK Government will have a significant impact on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. All the devolved services of health, housing, social care and employability will be affected in some way. We have a situation in which reserved decisions over which we have no say are impacting on devolved areas of responsibility, which in my view highlights the inadequacy of our current system of government.
The scope and scale of the changes present really significant challenges for people and organisations in Scotland and threaten to undermine and, indeed, cancel out so much of the good work that we collectively are able to do here in Scotland. That is true of the removal of disability living allowance, the reductions in working tax credits and what I would describe as the scandalous imposition of the bedroom tax that will see more than 100,000 tenants of social rented property lose an average of £12 every week as a result of underoccupancy restrictions. It is also true of the child benefit changes that the UK Government introduced recently. Those newly implemented changes will see around 90,000 families in Scotland having their child benefit income reduced or removed.
The UK Government says that that does not matter because it affects only the better off, except that its cack-handed implementation means that many people losing benefit will actually be on lower incomes than some of the people retaining the benefit.
There is a more fundamental point of principle at stake with child benefit. We have had a lot of debate in the chamber recently about universal benefits. I believe that the universal provision of key benefits is part of the social wage, and I will say more about that later. I accept that others disagree with that view. Some, such as the Conservatives, have probably always disagreed with it, whereas others, such as the Labour Party, have more recently come to betray the principle of universality. However, until recently, I thought that one thing that we all agreed on was that, of all benefits, child benefit was the one that should without doubt be universal. In my view, it should be.
Child benefit is paid directly to women in many cases—indeed, probably the majority of cases. It is therefore more likely than many other forms of support to directly benefit children and families, and it is fundamentally wrong that it will be subject to a means test.
Obviously, we have very different policy perspectives, but I do not disagree with some of the Deputy First Minister’s analysis. Will there be a commitment to reinstate universal child benefit when the Government outlines its policies for an independent Scotland?
We will outline our welfare policy in an independent Scotland in order to persuade people of the benefits of independence. Our commitment to the universal provision of key benefits will be a key part of our policies. It will also be our aim over time, when we have our hands on the levers of power in an independent Scotland, to ensure that we build a welfare system that reflects our values as a society. In my view, that is one of the key, overriding arguments for the Scottish Parliament being independent and in charge of welfare.
The cuts to child benefit go further than just the introduction of a means test. At the same time as the benefit is being removed or reduced for 90,000 families, it is, for others, being subject to a three-year freeze followed by the 1 per cent uprating cap. That means that a family with two children will be £1,100 worse off. We must recognise that, when we talk about those amounts of money, we are talking about a direct impact on the wellbeing of children throughout Scotland.
The Department for Work and Pensions has estimated that, compared with the current method of uprating benefits by the consumer price index, its latest changes to benefits uprating, which take effect between this year and 2016, will result in an extra 200,000 children throughout the UK being in relative income poverty. Based on the current share of children in poverty, that will result in an estimated 15,000 children in Scotland being pushed into poverty as a result of the UK Government’s misguided policies. Some 15,000 Scottish children will be plunged into poverty as a result of policies that we do not support and which were introduced by a Government that Scotland did not vote for. It is beyond me how anyone who cares about democracy and social justice—I include those in other parties, because I know that we all care about democracy and social justice—can argue against welfare powers being in the hands of the Scottish Parliament so that we can ensure that we have a welfare system that reflects what we want it to reflect.
The Deputy First Minister rightly talks about the 200,000 children who would be at risk of falling back into poverty across the UK, and she has pinpointed 15,000 children in Scotland. How will her solution help the 185,000 children throughout the UK who are not in Scotland?
I do not want to see a single child anywhere in the UK or in the world living in poverty. However, as a Scottish minister, I have a primary responsibility to ensure that we do everything that we can in Scotland to lift Scottish children out of poverty. It infuriates me to have a situation in which a Government that Scotland did not vote for—a Government that Drew Smith’s party does not support—is introducing policies that run counter to our attempts to tackle child poverty. Frankly, it is not good enough for us simply to wring our hands and say that we accept a situation in which 15,000 more Scottish children get plunged into poverty. This Government will never accept such a situation.
The situation is of even greater concern when we consider the Resolution Foundation’s estimate that 60 per cent of the cuts that will result from the 1 per cent cap on the uprating of benefits will fall on in-work households. That gives the lie to the UK Government’s claim that the reforms are all about the so-called work shy.
Are those not the same in-work households that have benefited from a massive rise in the tax threshold, which will result in a typical earner getting £2,500 more in income?
Even if that was correct, where is the logic, according to Alex Johnstone’s analysis, in giving with one hand just to take away with the other? The point is to try to lift people out of poverty, not to push them straight back into it.
The totality of the welfare changes and the changes to benefits uprating will affect 1 million working-age households in Scotland and we estimate that they will reduce the total income of Scottish households by about £210 million by 2014-15. Again, that is putting a brake on the economy when we should be trying to get it going. For households with children who are living in poverty and where benefits make up more than half of the income, frankly, the situation is of serious concern. There are different projections and predictions, but one thing is clear and central: the changes will have a significant negative impact on child poverty in Scotland.
Mitigation of all that is beyond the powers of the Scottish Government. Responsibility lies with the UK Government, and we will continue to press it to do more. However, we will continue to do what we can, where we can to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Just last week, I announced a package of more than £5 million to support organisations that are on the front line delivering advice and assistance and which are under pressure as more people come to them for help. The money will help to provide much-needed support to individuals and families.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention on that?
Yes—briefly.
Why did the cabinet secretary delay that package, which she recognises as so important, for about 18 months, when the consequentials had already been given to the Scottish Government?
I sometimes wonder what side Jackie Baillie is on. Why can she not join with Citizens Advice Scotland and welcome the announcement of help that we are giving, instead of appearing sometimes to defend the UK Government that she supposedly does not support? [Interruption.]
Could we have a little bit of order, please?
We are also providing more than £9 million for the new Scottish welfare fund to top up the funding that is to be transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions. Again, I hope that Labour will be able to support that.
We will do everything that we can to mitigate, but would it not be so much better—infinitely better—for this Parliament not to have to spend valuable resources mitigating the wrong-headed policies of a Tory Government in Westminster and instead be able to design a welfare system that we want and invest those resources in lifting people out of poverty? That is what we need to aspire to do.
As I said, the changes to child benefit are not just about the impact, important and devastating though that might be; they are also a matter of principle. In my view, the removal of entitlements is at odds with the principle of universal benefits and the benefits that I believe it can deliver for all. We have protected the social wage over the past years, as part of the contract between the people of Scotland and their Government. Under that, we will defend core universal services, rights and benefits. We have introduced or maintained free university education, prescriptions and personal care for the elderly and we have provided a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies, which the First Minister talked about in the chamber before lunch time.
Those are the right policies. I believe that it would be so much better if this Parliament had all the powers, so that we did not have policies that are introduced elsewhere running counter to the work that we seek to do here.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Yes—if I have time. Do I have time, Presiding Officer?
Yes.
Since the cabinet secretary uses the term “universal benefits” to cover the devolved universal services, is she saying in the last two lines of her motion that it would be impossible, post independence, for a devolved Scottish National Party Government to protect what she calls “universal benefits”?
Post independence, there will not be a devolved SNP Government—I hope that there will be an SNP Government of an independent Scottish Parliament. A consequence of people in Scotland voting no next year will be that we will continue to be at the mercy of Tory Governments that cut our budgets and cut welfare for the most vulnerable in our society. I have the greatest respect for Malcolm Chisholm, which is why I cannot believe that, deep down inside, he is happy with that prospect, because I know that he wants better for Scotland.
It will give me great pleasure to move the motion—actually, it will not, because I wish that we did not have to debate the issue and that we had the powers that we need to ensure that we have a welfare system that suits our people. I hope that, before too much longer, that is exactly what we will have.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with concern the changes to child benefit announced by the UK Government and the impact that these will have in Scotland; considers the decision to remove or reduce this universal benefit for over 90,000 Scottish families to be unfair to those families and children; particularly notes the impact of the three-year freeze from 2011-12 to 2013-14 and the 1% uprating cap for child benefit in both 2014-15 and 2015-16, which means that a family with two children will lose £1,100; regrets that cuts to child benefit will directly impact on the wellbeing of children across Scotland and notes that the Department for Work and Pensions acknowledges that the UK Government’s welfare cuts will lead to an increase in child poverty, and recognises that it is only through the full powers of independence that it can properly protect the universal benefits that produce fair and equitable outcomes.
14:45
Family allowance was introduced in 1946 by the great reforming Labour Government, which did so much to create and extend the welfare state. It was replaced by child benefit by another Labour Government in 1975. The last Labour Government augmented support for children through a system of tax credits. Child benefit has, until this month, been paid on a universal basis, with a recognition that, as a society, we all have a responsibility to all the nation’s children. Universal provision has had the effect of tying middle-income and higher-income families into a system of support that is provided to all. It has meant that the administration of the system has been easier, and there is less of a danger of those most in need failing to claim.
As the Deputy First Minister rightly said, child benefit has historically been a benefit paid directly to women for the purposes of supporting children. In the overall architecture of our welfare state, it has always been a crucial component of the welfare system. The decision of the UK coalition parties to attack child benefit has been condemned by my party elsewhere, and I am happy to repeat that Scottish Labour regards the changes that have been made as the wrong approach.
One of the tests that should be applied to any universal provision is whether its application to all makes it easier to reach those most in need and whether or not the cost of means testing would be proportionate. We in Labour recognise the need for money to be spent wisely. We have always argued that most support should go to those who are most in need. It is regrettable that the reform of child benefit and the callous cap on benefits uprating has resulted in a direct attack on children and cruelty towards the vulnerable, who have been labelled “skivers” by the Tories and Liberal Democrats. The unfairnesses of that are manifest when they are viewed in the round, and particularly against the tax cuts for millionaires.
That said, we are wary of parties who have never had to administer a welfare system promising the earth or, as Mark McDonald described it last week,
“the moon on a stick”,—[Official Report, 22 January 2013; c 15763.]
if only people are persuaded to vote for their constitutional proposition—a proposition that has been the nationalists’ solution to every problem since time immemorial, and which can in no way be described as an argument for the times.
The member is criticising the Scottish Government’s solution. Just for the record, I do believe that independence offers the solutions to many of these problems. Is he simply in a position of having no solution because, as long as we have Tory Governments that Scotland does not vote for, we simply have to put up with these things?
Labour at Westminster put forward a very clear proposal on the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill that the United Kingdom Government could have followed.
Because of the changes, 1.2 million families in Britain will lose out on child benefit. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, 7 million working households will lose an average of £165 a year because of the upratings cap. Not including cuts to child benefit, new mothers will lose £1,300 during pregnancy and the first year of their child’s life because of the combination of cuts to maternity pay, pregnancy support and tax credits.
A further result of the coalition’s changes is administrative chaos. Richer families will continue to be able to claim child benefit, meaning that the state must pay money out and then attempt to claw it back up to the total amount that was paid in the first place. As a result, it is likely that many more people will find themselves drawn into self-assessment tax for the first time.
The Deputy First Minister’s motion rightly makes reference to both benefits uprating and child benefit eligibility, and I agree with much of what she has said about both. The coalition parties have sought to turn benefits uprating into a political football, which is regrettable. Their description of strivers and skivers is simplistic and, frankly, offensive to those who are labelled as the latter. Many of those who are affected by the uprating cap are in work, including many whose only benefit might, until now, have been child benefit. Many are out of work, and there is a whole range of reasons for that. The first, it must be said, is a lack of jobs due to the mismanagement of our economy and the stalling of the recovery.
I turn now to the part of the Scottish Government’s motion which I find slightly less persuasive than the first. The Scottish Government asserts that the only way to
“protect the universal benefits that produce fair and equitable outcomes”
is to support the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. There are a number of problems with that assertion, and I fear that members will be well used to spotting them. First, universal benefits on their own do not necessarily produce fair and equitable outcomes. If Scottish National Party members were genuinely interested in a debate on universality, rather than in trying to score political points against Scottish Labour, they would find it in themselves to acknowledge, as they do in the context of policies in other areas, that fair and equitable outcomes are achieved through a combination of interventions, which must include a targeting of the most support at those who are most in need of help.
Will the member give way?
In a moment, Mr Stewart.
At any other time and in any other place, such an approach would not be considered controversial, but to the SNP it is apparently heresy.
Will the member give way?
I am happy to take an intervention from Mr Eadie. I apologise to Mr Stewart.
I—
I call Jim Eadie.
If Mr Stewart will just wait his turn, I am sure that he will have a chance to make an excellent contribution to the debate.
Does Drew Smith not understand the point that advocacy organisations make about targeting, which is that when benefits are means tested, many vulnerable and needy people are cut out, because they lack the literacy or advocacy skills to navigate their way through the benefits system? What we need to help the most vulnerable in society is integration of tax and benefits.
The problem is that there is a balance to be struck between universalism and targeting, as members of the SNP know, given that they voted for the legal aid changes in the Scottish Civil Justice Council and Criminal Legal Assistance Bill just this week and given that they have supported changes to the heating programme.
My second point about the Scottish Government’s assertion in the motion is that the SNP is presenting us with a solution that does nothing for people who will lose out because of the UK Government’s changes and who happen to live south of Gretna or west of Stranraer.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
I am not particularly interested in a debate about the deserving and undeserving poor, but if there are choices to be made I hope that we might at least be able to make them on the basis of material considerations, such as whether a person can afford new shoes for their kid or a meal for a kid’s school friend who is staying over, rather than on the basis of geography and national identity.
I care about child poverty in Mexico, for example. Is it Drew Smith’s contention that I can care about that only if we are in a political union with Mexico?
The point is that we currently pay into a pot for UK welfare and the SNP is seeking to withdraw our money from that pot.
SNP members now like to pretend that their nationalism is about social justice and not at all about nationality, but it is on welfare issues that their argument becomes most contorted. People throughout Britain pay into our welfare state, and removing our money from the pot is not progressive—it is as selfish as the claim that all the problems of the poorest will be solved if only the SNP wins a vote is dishonest.
I have talked about the parts of the cabinet secretary’s motion with which I agree and the part about which I remain to be convinced, so I turn to Labour’s amendment. Last week, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published an important report. The report’s author wrote:
“With the political debate dominated by the referendum on independence, it’s important to point out that the issues that are central to tackling poverty, such as health, childcare, schools and housing fall within current legislative powers of the Scottish Government. The problems highlighted in this report cannot wait; action can and should be taken now.”
I listened carefully to the Deputy First Minister when she responded to the report in Glasgow on Monday and I have listened to what she has said since then. I listened to what the First Minister said when I asked him a question about the report last Thursday and yesterday I read what he had to say about the issues when he spoke to the Jimmy Reid Foundation on Tuesday.
Nowhere in any of those comments did I hear an answer to the central point that the JRF made. Does the Scottish Government accept that it could do more with the powers that it has? When will it go beyond responding to statistics on child poverty and poverty across society that span its term of office by highlighting the likelihood of unwelcome new welfare reforms in future?
I quote the JRF again:
“it’s important to point out that the issues that are central to tackling poverty, such as health, childcare, schools and housing fall within current legislative powers of the Scottish Government.”
I put the quotation in the amendment, too, in case there was a danger of the Scottish Government missing it.
In all the time that we have been discussing UK welfare reform in this Parliament, my party and the Deputy First Minister’s party have been fairly well united in our analysis, our concerns and our ambition to do all that we can do to mitigate the impact. The Scottish Government must go beyond blaming others and using the poor as a superficially convenient argument for the powers that it has always wanted. If child benefit were going up and school milk could be laced with honey, the SNP would still want the break-up of the UK welfare state.
On welfare reform, we welcomed the plan to plug the gap in council tax benefit, which will be half-funded by councils, but we still have no idea for how long funding will be provided. On passported benefits, we are still no clearer about how longer-term eligibility will work.
Will the member give way?
I apologise to Mr Stewart. I would have liked to give way to him but I do not have time.
I make a serious request to the Deputy First Minister. Why can we not debate with the Scottish Government jobs and training, childcare, tackling health inequalities, the support for vulnerable two-year-olds that the SNP promised, the extra time that general practitioners in the deep-end practices are asking for, addictions services for parents, and support for local councils and communities that are affected by welfare change? Why can we not debate the opportunity provided by devolution to do more to help children in poverty? Those issues, and many more, should be our concerns.
I was elected to the Parliament in 2011, and in the time since then we have debated many issues. Some were worthy, but few were as significant as the one that we are discussing in this debate. The only times when we have discussed poverty in Scotland, however, have been in a few debates about the actions of the UK Government. I suggest that, when the JRF tells the Scottish Government that its past actions are failing and that a young boy in the city that the Deputy First Minister and I represent is likely to die 14 years earlier if he is born poor rather than rich, debating what the Scottish Government does not have power over and avoiding scrutiny of what it does have power over is a wholly inadequate response.
I therefore move amendment S4M-05521.1, to leave out from “and recognises” to end and insert:
“; notes the assessment of Tom MacInnes, the author of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report, Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2013, that ‘with the political debate dominated by the referendum on independence, it’s important to point out that the issues that are central to tackling poverty, such as health, childcare, schools and housing fall within current legislative powers of the Scottish Government. The problems highlighted in this report cannot wait; action can and should be taken now’, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to act now and use its powers to tackle poverty and inequality in Scotland.”
14:55
It always gives me great pleasure to come in and take my seat in the grandstand to watch the SNP perform in its current format. The position is improved when the prima donna role is taken by Nicola Sturgeon herself.
The truth is that the aims and objectives of welfare reform have been well identified and they need to be defended in the chamber. They are to reform and rationalise the benefits system away from the ad hoc structure that has grown up over the past 60 years and to remove entrenched benefits dependency, which, besides the economic impact on both the state and the individual, actively harms the individual in terms of health, ambition, aspiration and social exclusion. Areas in which long-term benefits dependency is seen as an option tend to have high levels of debt, family breakdown and alcohol and drug addiction and high crime rates. It is therefore essential that we recognise the need for welfare reform, and we must all participate in that process.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you. The member can push his button and I am sure that he will get the chance to speak later on.
It is also essential that we ensure that in future work pays, and that when people can work they will benefit financially from doing so.
I take the opportunity to attack the Government for what I see as a degree of dishonesty. I believe that it sees the need for welfare reform and that, while ministers condemn the UK Government for doing it, Nicola Sturgeon, quite rightly, is delighted that the UK Government is doing that job for her before—heaven forbid—she finds herself with her hands on the reins of power. However, that will not happen, and the reason is that the people of Scotland have already seen through that shallow position.
So far, the Scottish Government has used its politically motivated, synthetic outrage to whip up panic among benefits claimants. Today, realising that that has only alienated the hard-working families who pay the tax that funds the benefits, the Government has decided to go for the hearts and minds of the middle classes, who benefit most from child support. It is disingenuous to take that line because, for all Nicola Sturgeon’s hand wringing, it appears that not a penny is coming to the table. Promises are being made, yet there is no explanation of how they will be funded.
In the debate on the legislative consent motion, figures were brought to the chamber—they came from the Government’s back benches, in fact—that said that welfare reform would cost the Scottish economy £600 million and put 14,000 jobs at risk. That seems a huge amount of money and a lot of jobs. However, the claim betrays the bizarre assumption that the purpose of paying benefits is to provide economic activity. It completely misses the point that benefits are paid out of the money that comes directly from taxpayers, and the money is therefore drawn out of the economy in the first place. Alternatively, we could choose to borrow it, but I cannot understand how a Scottish Government could ultimately pay back that borrowing other than through increased taxation.
I believe that the pressure is on the Government to be honest about how it will achieve the objectives to which it vaguely, but regularly, refers. That is why, in the Minister for Housing and Welfare’s closing speech, I hope to hear exactly how the Government will finance its proposals. I want to hear—for the first time—costed commitments for how it will achieve the reversal of these welfare reforms. I want to hear costed estimates of how the vague promises to restore universal benefit will be funded. If the minister cannot do that, will she at least—as Liz Smith suggested—commit to reinstating child benefit, on which today’s debate is centred? I call on the Scottish Government to put an end to its cynical manipulation and rhetoric and bring something material to the discussion.
Before I close, I would like to address the amendments that have been lodged. I assure all members that although it is impossible for the Conservatives to support the motion, all the amendments meet with our approval.
I would like to discuss the Labour amendment specifically, which says, quite clearly:
“it’s important to point out that the issues that are central to tackling poverty, such as health, childcare, schools and housing fall within current legislative powers of the Scottish Government.”
It therefore falls to the Scottish Government to explain why its argument says almost exactly the opposite.
As I have tried to point out and as the Liberal Democrat amendment says:
“statements have been made by Scottish Government ministers and supporters implying that a full £2.5 billion will be added to the welfare and benefits bill of Scotland after independence”.
If that is in fact the cost, will the minister tell us that that is the cost and tell us where in a future Scottish budget that money is likely to be found?
You must draw to a close, please.
It must come from the taxpayer or from borrowing, which will have to be repaid through greater taxes in the future.
I move amendment S4M-05521.3, to leave out from “with concern” to end and insert:
“the changes to child benefit announced by the UK Government; recognises the budget deficit that the country faces and therefore accepts the necessity of removing substantial benefits payments to higher earners; recognises that child benefit uprating will be capped at 1% for two years in line with recent rises in earnings, and welcomes that many people will benefit from the largest ever increase in the income tax personal allowance and the forthcoming roll-out of the universal credit.”
15:02
We know what the SNP does not like: it takes every opportunity to focus on the Westminster Government’s ills. It takes up copious amounts of parliamentary time focusing not on the SNP Government’s responsibilities, but on another Government’s responsibilities and duties. From an almost lofty position, it likes to complain and commentate, but it rarely provides solutions. Everybody would admit that that is a tough task, and the purpose of our amendment is to allow SNP members to set out what they would like the Scottish welfare state to look like. They can tell us which benefits will be cut, which will be increased and which will remain unchanged. They can also tell us whether they would add £2.5 billion to the budget that an independent Scotland would inherit.
Will Mr Rennie give way?
Not just now.
From ministers’ rhetoric—I have numerous quotes here—I assume that the full £2.5 billion will be restored immediately.
The debate is timely, given that the SNP’s welfare commission was launched earlier this month and, apparently, will report in the next couple of months. I am sure that commission members would welcome contributions from those on the SNP benches on whether benefits will be cut, which benefits will be prioritised and which will be deprioritised. I am sure that they would welcome SNP members’ deliberations, which could feed into their conclusions.
Benefit recipients will also want to hear from the SNP about what its priorities will be for an independent Scotland’s welfare budget. They will want to know that the SNP’s actions will match the rhetoric.
SNP members—ministers likewise—have said on numerous occasions that they want reform and simplification of the welfare system, but I have not heard from them one single example of a reform.
Perhaps ministers today—
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
Not just now.
I am sure that members will take the opportunity today to tell us.
I am also sure that the SNP’s fiscal commission, too, would welcome SNP members’ comments on how they plan to restore £2.5 billion to the welfare budget. The commission has been tasked with bringing a degree of fiscal credibility to the SNP’s plans for independence. That credibility will be very important as it will impact directly on credit ratings, the cost of borrowing and the sustainability of an independent Scotland’s finances.
Will the member give way?
Not just now.
I am curious about whether the fiscal commission will meet the welfare commission to ensure a degree of consistency across the numerous commissions that the SNP is setting up. After all, we will want coherence, which previous commissions have lacked, with a commission saying one thing and ministers saying something completely different. That might change this afternoon, but I am not sure whether the Deputy First Minister’s speech indicates that it will. I do not think that the SNP is going to tell us which benefits will be prioritised or deprioritised. Who will be the winners and losers? We did not hear a single word about that from the Deputy First Minister.
I think that, this afternoon, SNP members will seek to prejudge the outcome of the welfare commission’s work and will, as they have done with many other advisers that they have recruited, ignore its conclusions. They have already made up their minds what they do not like—and they do not like to face up to the reality of having to live within their finances. There will be a lack of consistency between fiscal responsibility and their welfare commission. We need costed plans, not uncosted rhetoric.
To be fair, we Liberal Democrats favour a strong economy and a fair society that gives everyone a chance to get on. That is why we have cut taxes for those on low or middle incomes, increased the state pension and introduced a £1 billion youth contract while at the same time—this is critical—restoring the public finances to create the conditions for growth.
We must make it absolutely clear that under Labour the welfare state increased by 40 per cent at a time of considerable economic growth. In the 10 years before 2010, the costs increased from £132 billion to £192 billion. That is simply not sustainable.
Will the member give way?
I am in my last minute.
We reject the rhetoric of the skivers and the strivers—I say to Drew Smith that we have never embraced and do not favour that terminology. We want an enabling society that allows people to get up and get on. SNP members should take the opportunity this afternoon not just to criticise the UK Government but to set out their plans in detail. If they do not match their actions to their rhetoric, I do not think that they deserve to be trusted.
I move amendment S4M-05521.2, to leave out from “with concern” to end and insert:
“the position on child benefit in the UK; further notes that the Scottish Government has established a working group to advise it on what welfare policies it would be able to afford in the event of independence; believes that it would be sensible for people in Scotland to wait for the conclusion of that review before accepting any assurances from Scottish ministers on this matter; notes that statements have been made by Scottish Government ministers and supporters implying that a full £2.5 billion will be added to the welfare and benefits bill of Scotland after independence; notes that this figure does not include any costing for additional welfare benefits to be recommended for groups such as carers; awaits with interest the details on how such a bill and the additions will be accommodated within the estimated resources of an independent Scotland; in particular, waits to see if an immediate priority will be set out to restore child benefit to those earning over £60,000 in an independent Scotland; believes that, if the full figure of £2.5 billion is not part of costed plans, that would imply that some welfare changes are not proposed for reversal and believes that those should be clearly set out by the expert group, and further notes that the UK Government will have cut the tax bill for a family of two people on modest incomes by around £5,000 over the period.”
We now move to the open debate. I call Annabelle Ewing, to be followed by Neil Bibby. As we are quite tight for time, I ask members to take six minutes, including interventions.
15:08
I am very pleased indeed to be called to participate in this important debate on child benefit. When I was reflecting on what I wanted to say, the first thing that came into my mind was the old adage that begins “If you live long enough”. Who could have contemplated that the UK Government would go where even Mrs Thatcher feared to tread by means testing child benefit? One might have safely assumed that such a miserly and fundamentally ill-judged course of action was off the agenda, even for the Tories, when the current chancellor George Osborne said in his address to the party faithful at the 2009 Tory party conference:
“We will preserve child benefit, winter fuel payments and free TV licences. They are valued by millions.”
Indeed, they are, Mr Osborne—if you are listening to the debate. The universality of child benefit has been valued by millions since its introduction in the 1940s and its abandonment by the Tory-Liberal Government in London is not just a breach of faith with the people but a breach of the social contract that I believe underpins a decent society.
To Mr Rennie I say, “Shame on the Liberal Democrats”, in particular for doing what even Mrs Thatcher was not prepared to do in means testing child benefit. It is fair to say that such a policy would never have been associated with the old Liberal Party’s values—at least not some years back. It is certainly changed days.
The importance of the role of child benefit and of the universal payment should not be underestimated. That point was well summarised in a report by the House of Commons Social Security Committee in 1999. It recognised the multipurpose role of child benefit, which was, inter alia, to involve
“Promoting ‘horizontal’ equity between people of similar incomes, with and without children”
and
“Providing a contribution from society as a whole to the next generation”.
It also recognised, crucially, that such a benefit—as the Deputy First Minister alluded to—was offered to women and was paid to the woman in the household.
Will the member take an intervention?
You were not very keen to take an intervention, but I will take an intervention from you.
I will pose a simple question. I respect the fact that the member considers child benefit to be right at the top of the list of priorities. However, in a difficult time, when budgets are difficult to manage, where would she take that money from in order to make child benefit her first priority?
Members: Trident.
My colleagues are shouting “Trident.” That is just one example. Obviously, if Scotland had control over its own resources, we could decide how to spend them in accordance with our priorities.
If Mr Johnstone is so keen and confident about being able to defend the indefensible, why is the UK cabinet secretary for welfare, Mr Iain Duncan Smith, running scared of coming formally before this Parliament’s Welfare Reform Committee? There is no answer to that.
We have heard of the deleterious impact that the child benefit cuts will have on hard-pressed families in very difficult economic times in Scotland—difficult economic times that are being exacerbated by the austerity agenda that is being pursued by the Tory-Liberal Government in London.
How can it possibly be fair to cut child benefit from a single parent who is earning more than £50,000 when that person’s next-door neighbours, a couple with a household income of £100,000 equally divided, will not see such cuts to their child benefit? What an incoherent and essentially unfair policy.
How much public money is to be wasted on the administration of that damaging burden on hard-pressed families? We hear that it will cost around £113 million to £118 million of public money to administer the system over the first four years. Of course, that should not come as a surprise, because means testing is costly and unduly complex and impacts negatively on take-up of benefits. We have seen that with Gordon Brown’s flagship pension credit. Even approaching the 10-year mark, nearly a third of pensioners who are eligible for pension credit are not taking it up as a result of means testing.
It is not just the cuts in child benefit that are hammering hard-pressed families in Scotland. We are seeing a head-on assault on the welfare system, which is supposed to provide the safety net that is the mark of a decent society. We have heard about the miserable 1 per cent uprating cap for child benefit and the impact that that will have. We have heard about changes to the tax credit system, which again will impact on hard-pressed families and their children. We have also heard about the ridiculous and unfair bedroom tax and the huge impact that that will have on households across Scotland.
I could go on, but I am conscious of the time. This cynical and systematic dismantling of the welfare system by the UK Government is simply not tenable in our country. We have the opportunity, in the autumn of 2014, to respond “Yes” to the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?” Yes, Scotland should be an independent country, and yes, Scotland should take control of all its resources and of the welfare system so that we can ensure that we establish in our country a welfare system that better reflects Scotland’s values.
15:14
I join other members in welcoming the debate. The Labour Party is absolutely committed to supporting children and families. It was the Labour Party that introduced child benefit and it was the previous United Kingdom Labour Government that supported that with child tax credits, as part of a drive to eradicate child poverty and help families.
A report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development states that more than half a million children were pulled out of poverty by the most recent Labour Government, which was elected by the Scottish people. Considerable progress and achievements have been made but unfortunately that progress has stalled, and the numbers are in danger of increasing rapidly.
As Drew Smith said, child benefit has been paid universally because, as a society, we all have a responsibility for the nation’s children. I agree with Nicola Sturgeon that the coalition Government’s changes to the system are wrong.
Let me be clear: Labour does not support cutting child benefit—and certainly not while the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats give tax cuts to millionaires and big businesses. They have their priorities all wrong.
The member has set out that Labour does not support cutting child benefit but I seem to recall that Malcolm Chisholm, who is sitting in the row behind Mr Bibby, resigned from the Government because that is exactly what Labour did when it was in government.
We do not support the current changes to child benefit because the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, with their corporation tax cuts, are cutting taxes for millionaires and big business. We need to remember that the SNP also supports tax cuts for big business.
As has been mentioned, the coalition Government’s changes mean that nearly 100,000 families in Scotland are each set to lose a reported average of £1,200 in child benefit this year, and a majority of those will lose their child benefit entirely. That will have serious repercussions for levels of child poverty. Looking ahead, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which was regularly quoted by the Conservatives when they were in opposition, has said that thousands more households will lose the benefit over the next few years because the threshold for receiving it will remain fixed and will not take into account wage inflation.
The policy has serious failings, including the administrative complexities that Drew Smith mentioned. As I said, I agree with Nicola Sturgeon that the changes to the system are wrong. However, it is important this afternoon to focus on what we can do to support families in Scotland and throughout the UK.
We all know that we need an economic recovery. We need to support parents back to work and we need to make work pay. How can we encourage parents back to work if they are paid £6 an hour while, at the same time, they pay £5 an hour for childcare? That is not how we rebuild an economy and get people back to work.
The cuts to tax credits and child benefit will not help, but what is the Scottish Government doing to help parents with childcare? Tom MacInnes, of the highly respected Joseph Rowntree Foundation, hit the nail on the head when he said that action “cannot wait”. The foundation, like so many others, has shown that this Parliament has the powers and resources to effect change now.
Today, in this Parliament, we have a chance to make a difference. The Scottish Government should use its powers and resources to support families. Ministers regularly talk about the extension of nursery hours for three and four-year-olds but the reality is that you have been talking about that since 2007. You will not solve the childcare problems of 2013 with a policy that is six years old—a policy that you have still not implemented and a policy that you will not implement until 2014 at the earliest. As I have said before in the chamber, one rehashed or recycled policy—no matter how good—will not deal with the problems that parents face.
Your policy to guarantee early learning to only about 1 per cent of two-year-olds is not good enough, particularly when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are planning to offer nursery places to 40 per cent of two-year-olds in England.
It is clear that the Scottish Government is not doing enough to help families with childcare. It tries to speak the language of social justice but falls down when it comes to the crunch. It fails to act while, on this side of the chamber, we campaign to end the scourge of child poverty in Paisley and in Plymouth—child poverty is not acceptable anywhere.
Labour members continue to view childcare as a major priority because it is an issue of equality and fairness. We need a model of childcare in which costs are reasonable and under which parents know that their children will receive high-quality care. That is why, when you say you need the powers to improve benefits for children, people will ask, “What you would do with them?”
Although I did not agree with everything in Willie Rennie’s speech, he made an important point: SNP ministers should be careful about making billions of pounds-worth of benefits promises for their independent Scotland. People will rightly question whether those promises are just slick soundbites when ministers do not use the powers and resources that they already have. They will ask how the SNP will increase benefits when it also supports corporation tax cuts for big business.
Rather than simply calling for more powers, I hope that the minister will outline the positive steps that the Scottish Government will now take to give families the support they need now. A starting point would be to support Labour’s call for investment in colleges and housing, which could create jobs and opportunities to break the cycle of poverty. The reality is that progress was made on child poverty under Labour and has stalled under this Government.
The Labour Party has consistently demonstrated our commitment to children and families in Scotland and across the UK. I hope that other parties will show their commitment.
I remind members to address their remarks through the chair.
15:20
We have heard a lot today about some of the high-level figures that relate to the cuts and about how many families will be affected. Sometimes, we think too much about those high-level issues in this place, so I want to start by talking about some of the conversations that I have had in my constituency recently about the child benefit cuts.
Just as the cuts were taking place, a woman from my constituency who has a part-time job as a cleaner and whose husband works offshore in the oil industry and earns slightly over £50,000 a year talked to me about the impact that they would experience due to the money that they would lose because of the changes. A lot of folk will say, “If her husband’s earning £50,000 a year, they’re probably pretty well off.” However, we all know that lots of people struggle, no matter what their earnings may be. She said, “I would not be so bothered about us losing money if I knew that the money was going to somebody in society who is poorer than me.” However, that is not the case. She said that it was particularly galling that a household in which there were two earners who each earned slightly less than £50,000 would retain the benefit.
That discussion went on for some time. The lady had her head screwed on, without a doubt, because she went on to talk about the concept of universality. The Labour Party has stated that it introduced family allowance in 1946, which it replaced with child benefit in 1975. That is something for the Labour Party to be proud of. However, my problem is that, at this moment in time, I do not know where the Labour Party stands on universality any more.
The conversation with the lady in my constituency went on. She said, “If this universal benefit is going to be cut by Westminster, is the state pension going to be the next universal benefit to go?”
How can the population trust the parties at Westminster on that issue? Annabelle Ewing has already pointed out that, in his 2009 speech to the Tory conference, George Osborne said:
“We will preserve child benefit”
and other universal benefits. How can folk believe what he has to say?
Mr Rennie refused to take an intervention from me, in which I was going to point out that his leader, Nick Clegg, said, just before the last election:
“We are not putting child benefit into question.”
Once again, another U-turn from the Liberals; another failed manifesto promise. How can anyone trust the Liberals on benefits?
It is Labour’s position that really intrigues me. Members might be interested in this quote, which says that the Government
“plan to pay the deficit down on the backs of those with low and middle incomes, with a threat to universal benefits such as child benefit and the winter fuel payment ... It is essential that we defend these payments. The alternative is a dangerous erosion of the social solidarity that comes from a universal system.”
So said Ed Miliband in The Observer on 29 August 2010. Yet here in Scotland there are questions over the Scottish Labour Party’s position on universality, what with Johann Lamont’s proposed cuts commission. In today’s debate, Labour members need to tell the Scottish people where they stand on the principle of universality. For me, universality is key to that social cohesion.
In other small European countries, we see a similar mindset—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take a brief intervention from Ms Baillie.
I thank the member and I will indeed be brief. Can he take the principle that he has just outlined and apply it to this week’s debate on legal aid, where the SNP abandoned any question of universality in favour of means testing and targeting?
I say to Ms Baillie that today’s debate is on welfare, so universality in welfare is what I am concerned with today.
I turn to small European countries, some of which are our near neighbours. In Denmark, child allowance is paid to families with children under 18. In Sweden, families with children under 16 receive a similar benefit. In Norway, the age limit has just been raised from 16 to 18. In Finland, the benefit is paid until children reach the age of 17. None of those benefits is means tested.
Why, here in Scotland, are we facing the disastrous prospect of means testing not only of child benefit but in many other areas? How can we trust any of the Westminster parties to ensure that universality in welfare remains? That is why I think that this Parliament needs control over welfare, and I hope that the people of Scotland vote yes in 2014 to allow that to happen.
15:27
Family allowances were one of Beveridge’s three assumptions about what was needed to make the social security system workable; the others were a national health service free at the point of need—how innovative—and an avoidance of mass unemployment. Five shillings per week were given for each child after the first, and the allowance was the legal entitlement of the mother rather than the father. The reason that child benefit was paid to the woman was to ensure that the money was spent directly on the child.
According to the campaigning groups the Fawcett Society and the Women’s Budget Group, more than 70 per cent of the £18 billion in cuts to social security and welfare fall on women. One fifth of the female wage consists of benefits to compensate, for instance, for the low wages associated with female-dominated sectors such as care and retail, whereas benefits make up only one tenth of the male wage. Child benefit changes will actually increase dependency of women on men.
Removing child benefit from families in which one earner pays higher-rate tax impacts almost 100 per cent on women and indirectly on their children. The UK Government’s proposals seem to reflect outdated prejudices, as they give the impression that its goal is a world of breadwinning men and homemaking wives.
We now have a situation in which stay-at-home motherhood is viewed in distinctly pejorative terms by UK coalition politicians. How else can we explain the withdrawal of universal child benefit, with the promise instead of a childcare tax break whereby people will be forced to hand over the baby to the child minder, which they cannot afford, to make them more economically viable? Currently, parents in the UK contribute 33 per cent of their total net household income to childcare, whereas the figure is 11 per cent in France and 4 per cent in Belgium.
Taking the cuts to childcare and the cap on in-work benefits together with the ludicrous plan to rip Scotland out of the European Union’s social chapter, we are seeing the biggest attacks on the rights of women since before the suffrage movement hailed victory with the right to vote in the 1928 act. Burns said:
“While quacks of State must each produce his plan,
And even children lisp the Rights of Man;
Amid this mighty fuss just let me mention,
The Rights of Woman merit some attention.”
The EU’s social chapter gives a woman the right to maternity leave, the right to equal pay, the right to a pension and the right to protections in her workplace.
Following the official figures released by the Office for National Statistics in December 2012, analysis shows that Britain is now the most unequal country in Europe. What an achievement. I hope that the UK Government is proud of such an accolade.
It is a lesser-known fact that there has never been an equality impact assessment of the welfare reforms, in which child benefit reform is included. What a disgrace. No thought or attention has been given to how damaging the reforms are or to whom. No thought or attention has been given to the fact that the biggest losers are low-paid women and their families.
Let us take the example of a woman who, for many reasons, might find herself on her own with her children. She listens to the Government, which tells her that she has to work, and builds herself a career, but around 40 per cent of her earnings go on childcare. If she earns £19,869 a year, she will lose £9.32 per week. That cash could be used to pay for at least two family meals, send a child on a school trip or, depending on how many hours are needed, pay for some after-school care. Parents have to make such choices every day of the week, but the UK Government could not be bothered to pay those women some attention.
Let us say that the woman works hard, gets a better job, works her way up to a senior level and lands a job in which she earns around 60 grand a year. Just as she is feeling that she has made it in a world where it is difficult for women to reach the heady heights of such senior levels, the UK Government says to her, “We need your help to sort out the mess we made of the economy”. The child benefit on which she has depended to pay for school trips, after-school care or other childcare will be removed, but her next-door neighbours, who each earn £49,000 a year, will keep theirs. How can that be fair? How can anyone say that it is okay for her neighbours to earn a combined wage of £98,000 but it is not okay for her to earn £60,000 on her own?
Let us not forget that it was Tony Blair as Prime Minister who introduced the welfare reforms agenda. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, under his plans, which are being realised by the Tories at Westminster, another 85,000 children in Scotland alone—1 million across the UK—will be plunged into poverty over the next few years.
The Labour Party sits there with its synthetic outrage about how far its better together pals are going when, in fact, it would have done exactly the same thing. I wonder whether it is a requirement—or indeed a training need—for Labour members to take a course in revisionism. History seems to start only on the day that Labour comes to power and ends on the day that it leaves power. Labour are the great revisionists.
The inequality that I have described is what many Scottish women will experience for several years to come. They will disproportionately forfeit prospects, employment, pay and pensions. That is an abrogation of the social contract between citizen and Government, it represents a loss to the economy and, ultimately, it will exact a high price from us all—a price that we should not have to pay.
The unionists laughed at the misfortune of independent Iceland. They are not laughing now. Independent Iceland jailed its bankers, bailed out its people and increased child benefit at a most difficult time.
Should Scotland be an independent nation? Yes, it should.
15:32
I always like to agree with the cabinet secretary whenever I can and I agreed with much of what she said, except of course the conclusion that she drew, as embodied in the last two lines of her motion, and her attacks on Scottish Labour’s position, to which I will return. Those attacks did not surprise me, but what did surprise me was the wording of the motion. The whole motion is about child benefit, but I—and I am sure all my colleagues on the Labour benches—have been concerned not just about the attack on child benefit but about the wider attack on tax credits and other changes in the Welfare Reform Act 2012.
Jim Eadie raised a point about tax credits, which I think represent the integration of tax and benefits that he asked for. When we think of tax credits, we are reminded that the welfare state has always been a mixture of universal and targeted benefits. The SNP cannot admit that in its motion or its rhetoric, because that would undermine the whole basis of its attack on Labour in this Parliament.
Mr Chisholm said that he was surprised by the terms of the motion and that the Labour Party is worried about a number of other things, such as the attack on tax credits, as are SNP members. If Labour is so concerned, why does its amendment not mention those issues?
Our position on tax credits is well known, because we have been leading a campaign across the UK to oppose the £4 billion being taken out of tax credits in the Welfare Reform Act 2012, on top of other changes such as the cut to the childcare tax credit, which have already made their way into the system.
I am proud of Labour’s record on tax credits and other targeted benefits, but I am also proud of Labour’s record on child benefit. I am proud of what we are saying about it, because we want to keep child benefit as a universal benefit. We have said that we would pay for that by reversing the £3 billion tax cut from which the richest people in the UK have gained. I am proud of what we said about child benefit at the 2010 election—we said that we would uprate it beyond inflation—and, because I have a long political memory, I am also proud of what the Labour Government of the 1960s did. In 1967, the Labour Government made a significant increase in family allowance, paid for by taxation on the well-off in society.
My colleagues and I do not need any lectures about defending the welfare state. The simple fact of the matter is that the best way to defend it is to elect a Labour Government in 2015. That is why the last two lines of the motion, which are the heart of the SNP’s case this afternoon, are simply untrue. However, they reveal how the SNP intends to frame the referendum debate and, crucially, how it intends to invent its enemies.
Mr Chisholm says that the best way to defend the welfare state is to elect a Labour Government. In 1997, he resigned as a minister because Labour was cutting benefits. It was doing so by following the plans of the Tory Government from which it took office. Is there not an issue there about learning the lessons of history?
If Labour has made just one mistake since we invented the welfare state in 1945, that is not too much to complain about, considering all the other excellent things that we have done to create and defend it.
Of course, the last two lines of the motion refer not only to reserved issues but to devolved issues. That was the point of my intervention on the cabinet secretary. The last two lines of the motion also repeat the First Minister’s surprising statement at the SNP conference that the only way to defend what the SNP called universal benefits in this Parliament was to vote for independence. Is the cabinet secretary seriously saying that, if there is a no vote in 2014, the SNP would be unable to campaign in the 2016 election to defend what it calls universal benefits in this Parliament, whether free personal care, free concessionary travel or free education?
More importantly, universal benefits are currently being used as a stick with which to beat the Labour Party and—I repeat the phrase—to invent enemies. There have been some astonishing examples even this afternoon. Kevin Stewart said that the state pension would be abolished. SNP people on Twitter and elsewhere regularly say that we will abolish concessionary travel. From time to time, people even say that, because we question one or two universal services or the way that they are implemented, we are against the national health service. That is patent nonsense.
I actually said that the fact that child benefit is being slashed from the universal system raises the question of what is next on the agenda. Will it be the state pension? That could well happen. Let us be honest. If the UK Government has done that with child benefit and both parties said prior to the election that they would not, who is to say that they will not do the same with the state pension?
If Kevin Stewart was listening, he would know that I was talking about Labour policy. Those arguments are being used against what the Labour Party says in this Parliament and in the UK Parliament.
The reality is that the Labour Party invented the NHS and that there is always a debate about how much will be within the universal scope. That is what the argument about free prescriptions, for example, is about. The same goes for free personal care, which I supported and extended into the universal principle.
Let us be honest about this debate: the welfare state is always a mixture of the universal and targeted. It would help the debate if the SNP would recognise that.
Nicola Sturgeon rose—
I would give way if I was allowed to, but I do not think that the Presiding Officer will let me.
I can give you an extra 30 seconds maximum.
I have a simple question: I wonder why somebody of Malcolm Chisholm’s principles seems to prefer a Tory Government at Westminster to having a Labour Government in an independent Scotland.
I and all my colleagues are working inexorably to have a Labour Government in the UK in 2015. We will strive to achieve that. We believe that it will happen and that it is the best way to defend the welfare state.
15:39
I, too, wish to put on record my opposition to the changes to child benefit. Several colleagues, including Kevin Stewart, Annabelle Ewing and Malcolm Chisholm—whose speech was characteristically stylish, not that I agreed with all that he said—have spoken eloquently and powerfully about the effect that the freezing and capping of child benefit will have. I share their concerns about and criticisms of those attacks on families.
In 2005, David Cameron said:
“A modern, compassionate Conservatism is right for our times ... and right for our country.”
The proposed changes might be right for the millionaires and the super-rich who will benefit from the cut in the higher rate of income tax, but they are not right for the 90,000 families across Scotland who will see their household incomes and living standards fall as a result of them. In effect, those families will have their benefit cut or—in the case of two thirds of them—withdrawn altogether. The cuts are unfair and ill conceived and will have a significant effect on all the families affected. What is most concerning of all is that—as the Deputy First Minister outlined—the changes represent an ideological attack on the idea of universal benefits and the role of the state in supporting children.
Does the member accept that the numbers that he cites are accurate only if we consider the child benefit changes in isolation, but that they are not being made in isolation? Many of those families will be significant beneficiaries of the tax threshold changes.
Even if that were true—I have some doubts about the member’s figures—there is no point in improving the situation with regard to taxation if people’s entitlement to universal benefits is then removed.
There is another reason why we should safeguard universal benefits such as child benefit as a building block of a fair society: they build social cohesion and help to promote social justice.
If the UK Government would only listen to families and to organisations that are in regular contact with families, it would understand that child benefit is popular and effective precisely because it is so simple and because it is targeted at children. As the head of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, John Dickie, has said:
“if the UK government wants to target higher rate taxpayers it should do it through progressive taxation so that households without children share the burden”.
A vital feature of child benefit is that it is paid directly to the main carer for the child or children. As Christina McKelvie reminded us, it is overwhelmingly the case that women are the main carers. Research has shown that child benefit is spent on children—research by CPAG shows that it is used by parents of all social classes for clothes and shoes, food, essential items such as nappies and education-related items. The Scottish Parliament information centre tells us that, according to HM Revenue and Customs, the average family that is affected by the cuts will have £1,300 less to spend on such products every year. That will be a painful change for those families, which will hit their pockets. The number of families that will be affected is significant. In Edinburgh, 5,000 families will completely lose their entitlement, and in my constituency of Edinburgh Southern more than 700 families will do so.
I pause to reflect on the effect on our economy. When an average cut of £1,300 is applied to 90,000 families, it represents a loss to the Scottish economy of just under £120 million every year. At a time when Mr Osborne’s austerity is driving us to the brink of a triple-dip recession, another tax on family spending is surely the last thing that we need. We should contrast that with the efforts of the Scottish Government to protect family budgets at every turn, through measures such as the council tax freeze, free prescriptions and concessionary travel. That contrast in approach explains exactly why the motion calls for recognition that
“it is only through the full powers of independence that it can properly protect the universal benefits that produce fair and equitable outcomes.”
Furthermore, the changes are ludicrously complicated. HMRC has required to put 15 new pages on its website to explain the policy to the millions of confused families. Advice organisations are concerned that many families might stop claiming child benefit when they do not need to, and that the policy will add to hardship when income fluctuates or put an added financial strain on relationships when couples separate.
It is the attack on the universal nature of child benefit that most alarms me. CPAG in Scotland has made the point that, although at first glance the changes might not seem likely to have a direct impact on child poverty, the undermining of a simple, universal benefit will have lasting implications for the role of the state in supporting children.
An extra allowance for children has been a feature of the tax or social security system since the beginning of the 20th century, as Drew Smith said. Every other European country, except Italy, offers a universal child benefit or a child tax allowance for all children. Campaigners worry that the effect of the changes here, along with that of other cuts, will be that people will be made to feel guilty about receiving a benefit that was once a proud pillar of the welfare state and that children will be seen as a burden for the few rather than as the future for everyone in this country.
The rhetoric of us all being in this together has long since been exposed, as the majority of high earners, who do not have children, are not affected; those with earnings over £150,000, few of whom have children living with them, have even had their tax cut.
The child benefit changes will have a profound social impact on children and families across Scotland, and they will remove significant economic resources of disposable income and money circulating in the Scottish economy and in local communities. We in this Parliament can do better, and with independence we will do better for the children, families and communities of Scotland.
15:45
The changes to the benefits system are being met with anxiety and anger in communities across the UK, and we know that it is not just members in this Parliament who have been debating welfare reform. However, here and now in Scotland there are ways in which we can challenge the impact of the cuts on ordinary families. What is therefore disappointing about the Scottish Government’s motion for this debate is that it offers nothing more concrete than that all would be different in an independent Scotland.
I am pleased that Labour’s amendment references the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, “Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Scotland 2013”, which recognises that a number of areas
“such as health, childcare, schools and housing fall within current legislative powers of the Scottish Government.”
The report also notes:
“It is important that the discussion of independence does not obscure the need for policy development in all these areas to tackle problems that will exist whatever decision the Scottish people take in 2014.”
Colleagues spoke in the chamber yesterday of the problems of increased costs of living forcing people to resort to payday loan lenders, which traps people in a cycle of debt. It is of course worrying that changes to the welfare system in this country could be driving people in the same direction. Taking action on high-cost lenders is just one example of what we could and should do to help people now. That needs to sit alongside doing all that we can to promote and encourage credit unions as thriving, sustainable social enterprises that provide a service for everyone in the community and bring real diversity to Scotland’s financial services sector.
The need for such assistance is highlighted in a recent survey undertaken by the Poverty Alliance and Fife Gingerbread, which researched the experiences of lone parents in rural Fife. The research report is called “Surviving Poverty: the Impact of Lone Parenthood”. What is clear to those who have read the report is the uncertainty and fear that the changes to the welfare system are causing people in Fife. I am sure that the views displayed in the report will be replicated across Scotland. Lone parents face a number of issues, aside from changes to the benefit system, that affect their experience of poverty; those issues include finding adequate and affordable housing, education, training and employment, childcare and advice and support services. Some estimates suggest that the real income of a one-parent family will be reduced by more than £500 by 2015 as a result of welfare reforms, so the situation may only get worse.
In the survey, 71 per cent of respondents described either “great difficulty” or “some difficulty” in making ends meet. That is a shockingly high figure for people just trying to get by in their day-to-day lives. When six out of 10 poor children in the UK live in families in which at least one parent works, the thousands of families who are struggling day to day need to know what help they can expect now. From speaking to volunteers at Home-Start in Fife, I know that they are inundated by concerns about welfare changes from families whom they work with.
Last Saturday, I met volunteers and trustees at Dunfermline Foodbank and heard how local churches and community groups have enlisted the help of supermarkets and other local businesses to work at the front line of the fight against poverty, supporting individuals and families to meet that most basic of needs: food. They raised with me the concern that many of their clients do not even have enough money for the bus and walk long distances in all weathers to and from the food bank depot. I am grateful for the efforts and achievements of everyone involved in food banks, but I am sure that they would agree that they are no substitute for finding solutions to the poverty that is driving the demand.
Rural communities throughout Mid Scotland and Fife face additional problems in getting access to vital support services. Information is sometimes hard to find for them, there is less access to community and social support networks, and transport might not be available or affordable. That leaves many families isolated and without the support that they need.
I was therefore pleased to hear the Scottish Government’s recent announcement of funds for front-line advice and support services, but more details about how and when they will be available need to be forthcoming. I would be grateful if the minister clarified how much of the £5.4 million that is apparently being made available to agencies to respond to the need for support and assistance will be available directly to councils and their community planning partners, as many public sector bodies are already bearing the brunt of budget cuts and are facing increased demand for advice services. In its report, the Poverty Alliance goes as far as to say that the importance of advice services in assisting people with income maximisation and supporting those in and out of employment should be a priority in local and national anti-poverty strategies, and should be included in the new single outcome agreements.
It is disappointing that we see in the motion no such practical suggestions or useful policy indications of how the Government intends to counteract any negative impacts of welfare changes on the lives of people in Scotland using the powers that it already has. The Scottish Government’s motion could have been used to engage more constructively across the chamber in discussing the impacts of welfare reform. I hope that there will be such dialogue in the future. People who are being hit the hardest need help now. They cannot afford to wait.
15:51
At the outset of my speech, I should declare an interest: my family is a beneficiary of child benefit.
I cannot exactly say that I welcome the debate—I said the same at the start of our debate on fuel poverty. I would prefer that the changes were not happening, but it is important that we debate the issue.
Before I go into details, I say to Malcolm Chisholm, whom I normally very much enjoy listening to, that it was somewhat galling to hear his upset over the Labour Party being accused of cutting bus passes. I remind him that it was his party that set up a cuts commission for which nothing is off the table. I have lost count of the number of times that I have met individuals when I have been out canvassing on behalf of my party who have informed me that they believe that my party will cut bus passes. Now we know that the SNP is preserving the bus pass and Labour is threatening it.
As I have said before, I totally support the review, but it is quite a different thing to say that we are going to abolish concessionary travel, when we may be looking at modifying it. As the member knows—the issue came up at the Finance Committee two weeks ago—Age Scotland, for example, wants to modify it. Does he reject its suggestion as well?
I reject the suggestion, which I have heard countless times, that the SNP will abolish the bus pass. Quite frankly, that was an unconvincing explanation of why the charge cannot be levelled against the Labour Party.
Let me get on to child benefit, because that is what we are debating. I want to look at how the change is affecting people in Scotland.
We know that child benefit cuts will mean that a family with two children will lose more than £1,100 a year and that a family with one child will lose more than £650 a year. According to the UK Government, in the next financial year, approximately 85,000 families in Scotland will be affected by the high-income child benefit charge, which will reduce or remove their benefit. That, of course, creates a nonsensical situation—I think that that has been referred to. It is absolutely bizarre that the UK Government has come up with a formula that means that a single-income family that earns more than £50,000 will lose child benefit, whereas a couple with a combined household income of just under £100,000 might not do so. Even Iain Duncan Smith’s favoured think tank, the centre for social justice, has criticised that aspect. There are other flaws with the high-income child benefit charge.
Lest we think that it is only the higher earners who will be affected by the child benefit changes, that is, of course not the case. The Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, which is being considered at Westminster, will limit increases in working-age benefits to 1 per cent for three years. That will affect child benefit as well. It will, of course, affect people at the lower end of the income scale.
Today, an article has been published in the Daily Record that says that, with the changes, there will be some 15,000 more children in relative poverty in Scotland and 200,000 more children in relative poverty across the UK. I say to Drew Smith that we are all concerned about kids being pushed into poverty anywhere. However, on his party’s unwillingness to see the powers invested and used here, I will not go back to my constituents and say, “We won’t do anything for you because other parties in the Parliament are not confident enough to take powers here.” If we had the powers, we could help our constituents.
I always think that the Labour Party’s solidarity is a bit phoney. Mark McDonald made the point well that it seems that the Labour Party’s social solidarity extends no further than the white cliffs of Dover.
The changes that make child benefit a targeted measure will make it far more complex. I do not have time to go into that in great detail, but there are concerns. The Scottish Government has set out solidarity and cohesion as two of its main purpose targets, and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has suggested that the move away from universality reduces solidarity.
My colleague Mr Stewart referred to the position as espoused in The Observer by the leader of the Labour Party. I agree with Ed Miliband that attacking universal benefits such as child benefit is
“a dangerous erosion of the social solidarity that comes from a universal system.”
The Labour members here would do well to reflect on that.
Frankly, it is somewhat galling for the Tory amendment to conclude that
“many people will benefit from ... the forthcoming roll-out of the universal credit”,
on a day when the Daily Record published an article that says that 15,000 children in Scotland
“will fall below the poverty line”
as a consequence of the changes. I remind those on the Tory benches that those are DWP figures—their own Government’s figures.
I will gently ask Alex Johnstone a positive question. Like me, he is a member of the Welfare Reform Committee. I ask him to name a witness who has come to our committee and spoken of the benefit of the changes, because I cannot remember a single one.
I turn briefly to the Labour amendment, which suggests that
“the issues that are central to tackling poverty, such as health, childcare, schools and housing fall within current legislative powers of the Scottish Government.”
Indeed they do, but the suggestion is that the Scottish Government is doing nothing. I remind Labour members that the SNP Government has protected the national health service budget when Labour would not have ring fenced it; looked to roll out increased hours of nursery education; provided free tuition in education; and delivered more affordable homes.
You need to come to a conclusion.
We heard from Labour members about all the great achievements from the 1940s, 1960s and 1970s. The SNP Government is achieving here and now, but we could do much more with the powers of independence.
15:57
I begin with a Burns quote that is heard frequently in January and which is apt for the debate; it is about the type of Scotland that we want to live in and our values and choices. It goes:
“Auld Scotland wants nae skinking ware
That jaups in luggies”.
Scotland does not want a watered-down welfare system that does nothing to fill the bowls of our citizens. Time and again, Scotland has shown that she wants the bowls filled with haggis, the full bhuna or whatever. We want a welfare system that is built on the principles of universalism: from each according to their ability and to each according to need, and from the cradle to the grave.
We know that Scotland wants that from the overwhelming vote in the 2011 elections for the policies of universalism in the SNP manifesto, such as free education, free prescriptions and free personal care. Those are now described as a something-for-nothing society, but I say to those on the Labour benches that, as soon as we ask why the middle or upper classes should benefit from universal services, we have lost the principle that they are about: the normalisation of welfare.
The member could perhaps take some time to explain why the Scottish Government introduced means testing into the central heating programme.
We have been accused of not walking the walk, but the Scottish people have shown that they support our record on universal services.
There is more evidence that Scotland wants that. On 29 May 2009, Scotland’s Futures Forum and Glasgow Caledonian University’s poverty information unit co-hosted a conference in this chamber to explore the extent to which the Scottish Parliament in its first decade had reduced poverty and inequalities and to consider what the Parliament should be doing in the next 10 years. I cannot mention all the key conclusions today, but one of them was:
“Inequalities of income and wealth have changed little in recent decades with a corrosive effect on all sections of society. It is therefore vital that we tackle inequality as much as poverty.”
Another was:
“High quality public services that are accessible to all but meet the needs of the most vulnerable are crucial to ensuring a more equal society.”
One of the contributors looked to “The Spirit Level: Why more equal societies almost always do better” to show that an equal society benefits all sections of society, including the richest, who benefit from lower mortality rates and better mental health.
That benefit from an equal society is also evidenced in the Jimmy Reid Foundation report, “The Case for Universalism”, which examines the debate in Scotland today. Mr Smith said that he wanted this debate, but I was very disappointed that a debate in the Parliament on that very report was stopped from happening, because not one member of the Labour Party felt that they could support the principles on which all the welfare benefits that they brought in were based.
In its section on international comparisons and contrasts, the report examines the Nordic model of a truly “universal welfare state”. It says:
“Such an approach to organising society and the economy has been described as: ‘a broad range of social services and benefits that are intended to cover the entire population throughout the different stages of life, and ... the benefits are delivered on the basis of uniform rules for eligibility. A typical example would be universal childcare or universal child allowances that are distributed without any form of means-testing’ ... Such an inclusive welfare state inevitably has consequences for the whole of the community: the welfare system is not just for ‘the poor’ but for all, building social cohesion, solidarity and inclusion”.
By any comparison, the Nordic countries, individually—as evidenced by Kevin Stewart—and collectively, occupy the highest ranks and indices of income, wealth, happiness, life satisfaction and equality, with the lowest levels of poverty and inequality in the world.
Our economic and fiscal choices should be about the society that we aspire to. The recognition that stigmatisation, alienation and poverty traps simply impede economic and social cohesiveness must take centre stage. It is about philosophy; it is not about fiscal decisions.
Scotland’s Futures Forum also came up with aspirations for Scotland. It sought
“A more progressive tax system ... Reduction in educational inequalities ... A reduction in inequality of wealth as well as income ... High quality public services accessible to all”.
Those are very welcome aspirations.
This debate has been to the fore recently in Scotland. I saw Douglas Alexander on “The Politics Show” trying to defend the indefensible—the Labour Party’s lurch to the right. In doing so, he quoted Bevan:
“The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism.”
Bevan coined that phrase in 1949. Perhaps Mr Alexander and other Labour politicians should read his 1959 speech, 10 years later, following Labour’s defeat, long after Bevan had parted company from the Labour front benches over the introduction of prescription charges, which he saw as an abandonment of the founding principles of the NHS. He said:
“I once said ... that the language of priorities was the religion of Socialism, and there is nothing wrong with that statement ... but you can only get your priorities right if you have the power to put them right ... The argument is about power and only about power, because only by the possession of power can you get the priorities correct.”
I look forward to the day when the power is in the hands of a Scottish Government in an independent Scotland.
16:04
That the UK coalition has tampered with child benefit in an indefensibly inequitable way is beyond question. Sadly, though, it is a done deal, but it is right that we debate this important issue here, because it impacts on the lives of more than 90,000 people here in Scotland. This afternoon we have an opportunity to debate a vision of a Scotland that puts the welfare of our children at the heart of society.
Child benefit has its origins in post-war Britain, when the ruling coalition of the time sought to ease the burden on families’ suffering amid housing shortages and food rationing. At a time when many families are struggling to make ends meet and there is an increasing need for food banks, it is difficult to understand the rationale behind the current decision. Child benefit was originally called family allowance and has been reinvented a couple of times. It became known as child benefit in the late 1970s and further changes were made in the 1990s, when a higher rate for the first child was introduced.
Governments of various colours have continued to invest in that important benefit, which recognises the importance of every child in every household, not to mention the increasing cost of raising a child. According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research’s recent report, “Cost of a Child: From cradle to college”, the cost of raising a child has soared; it will have cost more than £218,000 by the time the child is 21.
We know that women earn less than men, and that austerity measures, unemployment and underemployment have disproportionate impacts on women. The lack of affordable good-quality childcare is important, as Christina McKelvie said, and deserves our undivided attention, because it greatly affects women and children in Scotland. Although people who work in childcare are not well paid, we have among the highest childcare costs in Europe. That factor might force more women into economic inactivity. Barnardo’s made the point recently in its report, “Paying to work: childcare and child poverty”, and the Scottish Trades Union Congress made the same point in its evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s inquiry into underemployment in Scotland. Child benefit, as a reliable part of a family’s income, might enable some women to stay at home and look after their children and it might help others to pay for childcare.
In many households, income is not shared equally, as is suggested by the direct payment of child benefit to women in 94 per cent of cases. Child benefit is an independent income on which many women rely—even women whose partners earn £50,000 and more, as Kevin Stewart said. If a family with two or three children took on a large mortgage when it was perhaps too easy to do so and is now in changed circumstances and struggling with repayments, perhaps with negative equity on the home, and if we factor in credit card debts and the usual household bills, it is quite possible that although the family appears to be comfortably off it is relying on child benefit to buy food and children’s clothing.
For some women and children who are escaping domestic violence, child benefit is the only source of income. The excellent campaign work of Zero Tolerance long ago dispelled the myth that domestic abuse is experienced only by women in low-income households.
The Fawcett Society has questioned the policy and has asked whether it will increase or reduce inequality between women and men. We know the answer. I want to live in a country in which policies are fully evaluated for their impact on equality and in which the impact of policies is measured and reviewed as necessary, even after decisions have been taken.
The cross-party group on children and young people has discussed the extent to which Government, local authorities, health boards and key agencies have statutory duties to consult children and young people about issues that affect them. In Scotland, we have legislation that encourages engagement with and consultation of children and young people on decisions that affect their lives. How many children were consulted about the policy on child benefit?
The proposed children and young people bill offers an opportunity to discuss issues fully and strengthen children’s rights. I hope that Parliament will take full advantage of that opportunity. When, in December 1991, the UK ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, it agreed to make all laws, policy and practice compatible with the convention. In 2010, the then Minster of State for Children and Families, Sarah Teather, pledged in a written statement that the Government would give due consideration to the convention when making new law and policy. However, no consideration appears to have been given to the views of children who will be affected by changes to child benefit. The UK ratified the convention, but it is not being applied properly, even when benefits for children and young people are affected.
Child benefit has been a universal benefit. Its mutuality has a benefit that should not be sacrificed. Article 27 of the UN convention places an obligation on states to assist parents to meet the material needs of their children. Child benefit is society’s small contribution to its children’s welfare. The welfare of our youngest people is central as we debate our future. The UN convention, along with policies such as universal child benefit, is worthy of a place in a national constitution. It says that children matter.
16:09
For me, this debate, like many of the debates that we have in the chamber, is about independence. The Opposition parties do not like to hear this, but we will get the socially just Scotland that we aspire to only through the powers of independence. I have said before that politics is about people. We represent the people; how we represent them and the decisions that we make can make a difference to their lives and can lead them to aspire to the lifestyle that we want them to have. I ask Labour members to listen to the arguments over the next 18 months and to see what independence has to offer, because the union is obviously not working in this respect, as the Deputy First Minister said.
I respect the Labour Party for much of what it did in the past—for example in the 1940s, with the introduction of the welfare state. I also respect Malcolm Chisholm for some of the things that he said earlier and for what he says during debates. However, the 1960s were a long time ago. I was not even born then, believe it or not. I am talking about the here and now; I am talking about children and families in Scotland at the present time. They are the people whom we represent and the people for whom we have to make decisions. As the Deputy First Minister said, why should we listen to a Government that we did not elect and would probably never elect? Why do we not work together to ensure that we can have the socially just Scotland that we all wish for?
It is with regret that I speak again about changes to our welfare system that target the most vulnerable and needy people in our society. How many of us stand by the idea that a society is judged by how it treats its weakest members? I suggest that most of us stand by that—although having listened to the speeches by some members, I think that some believe otherwise.
Child benefit—money that is meant to ensure the security of our children—is to be reduced for, or removed from, 90,000 families in Scotland. That decision was made by a Parliament that we did not vote for and have no influence over when it takes such decisions. The decision will affect families across our country. The Westminster Government’s own Department for Work and Pensions has freely admitted that the welfare cuts will increase child poverty. Having heard Mr Johnstone’s speech, I can confirm that we are truly back in the Thatcher era, as policies search out, demonise and punish those in society that certain parts of the right wing of the political spectrum believe deserve it.
I fully respect George Adam’s position and his aspirations. However, looking at the most recent figures, I suspect that if Scotland were to become independent in a couple of years, the overall budget that its Government would look at would be similar to the one that we have today, or perhaps slightly less, given the possible increased borrowing costs. Given the same budget, where would George Adam reprioritise spending to ensure that his aspirations were achieved?
I say in response to Mr Johnstone’s argument that the main difference is that we would be in control of what we were deciding. It would be this Parliament and the people of Scotland who would be making the decisions for our country and ensuring that we have the future to which we all aspire.
In an independent Scotland, if we are told that a policy will increase child poverty, will the Parliament say that it is a price worth paying? That is not likely, but when such a policy comes from another place, we have no ability to change it and we must accept it. That is the human cost of the union. We must remember that, when we have debates such as this. As I have said before, it is the women, children, fathers, daughters, mothers and families of Scotland whom we represent. We must ensure that we do it to the best of our ability.
Why not use the tax system to reduce the deficit that the unionist Governments created? Why not target those who have money and are deliberately avoiding tax, whether that is the rich or the multimillion pound companies that we hear about every week? The Tories seem to think that it is somehow more effective to create an administrative system that will reduce child benefit for a family of two by £1,100 a year and remove a family from child benefit if one member of the family earns £50,000, but to keep paying out to families that earn £98,000. A new system will be created to claw back from families through income tax the child benefit that they were paid.
The Scottish Government budget has been reduced by the Tory-Lib Dem Government. Even with that, the Scottish Government still has the opportunity to make a difference. It is a tale of two Governments: one that cares, is aspirational and looks to the future for its people; and another that just wants the people of Scotland to know their role and place, and not to move forward.
It may interest members to know that we continue to have the best package of nursery care in the UK. We have increased free nursery provision by 20 per cent, invested £11 million in the family nurse partnership programme and extended free school meals to people on low incomes. Those are not aspirations; they are things that have happened within the straightjacket of devolution.
Independence is the only way forward for the people of Scotland. This argument—like many of the arguments and debates that we have—is a reason for Scotland to be independent. So, should Scotland be independent? I say yes.
16:15
I am privileged to speak from the Labour Party benches on this issue. We have a history of supporting children and families: we increased child benefit, introduced child tax credits and have fought against the current child benefit reforms every step of the way.
The Tories and Lib Dems in Westminster have the wrong priorities. They are cutting taxes for millionaires and big business while slashing welfare benefits such as housing benefit and child benefit, which is an outright attack on the most needy in our society and will plunge more children into poverty.
The changes that are being put in place by the coalition Government mean that more than 100,000 families in Scotland could each lose up to £1,200 a year. It is neither fair nor equitable that people who earn more than £150,000 are getting a tax cut while single-earner families on £50,000 are getting their child benefit cut. Of course, equality is not something with which the Eton boys are familiar. How can it be right that a couple who each earn £49,000 a year can still access full child benefit whereas a family whose single income is £60,000 a year will get none?
The Institute of Economic Affairs has called this child benefit change:
“the single most incompetent change to the benefits system since the second world war”.
I agree that it is deeply unfair and unjust. In the test of fairness and even from an administrative standpoint, the child benefit reform is a complete shambles.
The coalition needs to look at how child benefit is paid. Save the Children believes that child benefit should be paid to the main carer or second earner in a couple family, which is usually the mother. That gives at least some comfort that the money will go towards the wellbeing of the child and avoid the difficulties that arise in a relationship where there is domestic abuse or where the partner does not provide adequately for children.
I hear the Scottish Government calling for more economic levers. In response to that I ask what it would do with them. It has the power now to change things, but what is it doing? For example, it was announced last year that the amount of free childcare will increase by 125 hours to 600 hours. I welcome that development, but it was announced first in 2007 and then again in 2012.
When female unemployment was rising year on year, up to the 23 per cent rise between 2010 and 2011, why was action not taken? It was viable for the Government to do so, but action was delayed, so I ask the Government when those changes will come into play. They could be of real benefit in supporting children and families and reducing child poverty.
We need to look at ways in which we can change the culture so that childcare goes from being expensive and inflexible to being accessible for working-parent families countrywide. That is a difficult task, but one that we must address.
Many local authorities are considering closure of after-school clubs and breakfast clubs because of budget constraints. Those vital services are often the only way that working mothers can afford to work. Although council budgets are a decision for councils to make, their cuts are a direct result of Government policies, which are not supporting children and families.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, we in the Labour Party have a proud record in Government of supporting children and families. I make no excuse for repeating from our amendment the quotation from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report that has been mentioned so many times this afternoon. Perhaps the SNP will listen to what it is saying.
“With the political debate dominated by the referendum on independence, it’s important to point out that the issues that are central to tackling poverty, such as health, childcare, schools and housing fall within current legislative powers of the Scottish Government. The problems highlighted in this report cannot wait; action can and should be taken now.”
When it comes to supporting families, we need clear direction and action from this Government. We have to move away from the soundbites and come up with practical solutions right now to protect those who are being hit by the cuts, and to tackle the real inequalities in Scotland. We need to start using the powers that we have today to protect the most vulnerable, to support children and families and to ensure that our children get the best possible start in life. They should not be used as a political football to score points against the coalition in Westminster.
Labour will in this chamber continue to speak out against the Tory-Lib Dem cuts, and our Westminster colleagues will fight to get them reversed. They are fighting not just for a fairer Scotland but for a fairer United Kingdom. After all, the problems are ideological, not geographical.
16:21
First of all, I declare that my family are child benefit recipients.
I want to touch on a few issues that have arisen in the debate. I think, for a start, that my colleague Jamie Hepburn dealt very well with the accusation that the Scottish Government is “doing nothing” when he outlined the policy areas where it has taken action. I should also point out that it is trying to ameliorate the harmful impact of the coalition’s welfare reforms through the introduction of the Scottish welfare fund, the commitment to plug the gap in council tax benefit and the announcement of £5.4 million for benefits advice groups. All those actions demonstrate the Government’s commitment.
Beyond that, the social wage, which comprises the universal benefits that the Government is committed to maintaining, is absolutely about helping those in poverty as well as wider society and the promotion of social cohesion.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
As colleagues have pointed out, in order to create social cohesion we need to normalise the benefits system to ensure that it is not seen as something just for poor people, and to engender respect for it among the middle and upper classes.
With regard to the lessons of history, I return to the point that I made to Malcolm Chisholm. When, in 1997, the Labour Party came to power following Tory Government, it chose to implement, instead of reverse, benefits cuts that the Tories had planned in their budget. I therefore say: fool us once, shame on us. As for fooling us twice, I say to Mr Chisholm that I do not think that Labour will get that opportunity. I hope that the Scottish people will see through all that when it comes to the vote in 2014.
On the argument that the SNP has suddenly realised that this is all about social justice and not national identity, I will say that I care deeply for all the people who live in Scotland, regardless of their nationality. To be frank, it is absurd to claim that the independence cause is defined by national identity. I want a country where people from all over the world want to base themselves and live because it is a fairer and more prosperous society. National identity does not matter a jot to me; this is about building a better Scotland for all of the people of Scotland, irrespective of their nationality.
I tried to intervene on Willie Rennie, but he is obviously not in the mood for a debate today. I wanted to ask him about budget impacts, because in last week’s debate on the budget bill I told him to go away, have a look at the UK budget’s impacts on income groups in society and come back and tell Parliament what he had found out. Mr Rennie clearly did not do his homework.
Will the member give way?
No. Luckily, I have the information that Mr Rennie should have been looking for.
I will quote to Mr Rennie from the Institute for Fiscal Studies budget analysis for the 2012-13 budget:
“The largest average losses as a fraction of net income from the modelled tax and benefit reforms to be introduced in 2012-13 are among those in the bottom half of the income distribution. The lowest-income fifth of households will lose about 1.5% of their net income from these reforms, on average.”
It goes on to say:
“Households towards the bottom of the income distribution lose out particularly from the lower benefit rates that arise from using the CPI to uprate them rather than the RPI or the Rossi index, from the time-limiting of contributory Employment and Support Allowance ... to one year for those in the Work-Related Activity Group ... and from the cash freezes to Child Benefit and Working Tax Credit amounts.”
Let us hear no more from Mr Rennie that the Tory-Lib Dem budget—
Will the member take an intervention?
No. Mr Rennie can deal with the point in his closing speech.
Let us hear no more about how the budget that is being put forward by the Tories and the Lib Dems at Westminster is somehow helping those at the lower end of the income groups. It is not helping them; it is detrimental to them.
What have the Lib Dems chosen to rebel on in order to show the difference between them and the Conservative Party? Is it the dismantling of the NHS? No. Is it tuition fees of £9,000? No. Is it benefits destruction? No. It is boundary changes. That’ll show them. That is the reality of the Liberal Democrats in Government; they are unwilling to stand up on points of principle and far too willing to stand up on points of self-preservation.
In terms of the Tory arguments, Alex Johnstone continually referred to increased borrowing costs. I know that he is, as a farmer, well used to the construction of straw men, but even he should acknowledge that his own government is now going around telling people that credit ratings are not the be-all and end-all and that they are not all that they are cracked up to be, in anticipation of the fact that the UK Government is likely to lose its AAA credit rating in the not-too-distant future, purely as a result of the ruinous economic policies that are being pursued by the chancellor, whom he supports. Alex Johnstone cannot come to this chamber and start bandying around the notion of credit ratings and increased borrowing costs when his own chancellor is putting that very rating at risk.
The child benefit reforms are, to be frank, a guddle. There is no other way of putting it. The proposal is the most bizarre way to construct any form of benefit. There is the fact that it does not distinguish between single-income and double-income families, which means that a single parent on £60,000 a year loses their entire child benefit, while a couple who earn £49,000 each will retain theirs.
Then there is the high-income child benefit charge. Rather than simply stop or reduce the payments for parents who earn more than £50,000, they will instead be clawed back by forcing those people to go through a self-assessment tax return. It is less a child benefit now and more a child paperwork-intensive interest-free mini-loan. The UK Government should be ashamed of itself.
We turn to the closing speeches. Willie Rennie has six minutes.
16:27
I see that Mark McDonald’s affection for the Liberal Democrats has not improved.
I was in coalition with the Liberal Democrats for five years, so what do you expect?
Maybe that taught him a lesson.
Mark McDonald fails to recognise that we need to look at all the changes over a period of time. If we look at one budget in isolation, we do not recognise, for instance, the significant cuts to tax for people on low and middle incomes. We have to look at everything in the round, not in isolation. I am sure that we can all pick isolated statistics to prove our case, but Mark McDonald needs to look at the matter in a much more considered way.
I know more at the end of the debate about what the SNP does not like. I thought that that was what we would get. I did not think that we would get many answers about what kind of reform the SNP would like. The SNP has previously promised—on numerous occasions—further reform. It has said that it wants simplification and that it does not think that the welfare state should stay the same. However, nothing—not one single thing, not one idea—came forward from any SNP members who spoke today.
Jayne Baxter made the worthy point that the independence debate should not force an absence of policy. She is absolutely right about that, but independence is the excuse; whenever anybody from the SNP is challenged about the detail, they say that that is a future Scotland’s choice. They fail to recognise that they need to spell out what it would look like. They cannot criticise and then fail to come up with the answers. Clare Adamson had some fine words—actually, it was quite a good speech—but there was no substance at all on policy. There were no ideas.
I can only assume from all the remarks that the SNP is in favour of increasing the welfare budget by £2.5 billion when Scotland is independent, because not one single SNP member came up with any ideas about reform. Actually, I apologise. Annabelle Ewing came up with a suggestion on Trident.
Will Mr Rennie give way?
I do not know how many times the Trident money has been spent. I am sorry to disappoint Annabelle Ewing, but Angus Robertson has already grabbed that money for defence.
Will Mr Rennie give way?
No.
The Trident money has been spent numerous times, and apparently will also be spent on the welfare state. I look forward to a little bit of consistency.
The Scottish Government’s welfare working group will have received a clear message today, which was “Do not change one single thing. There should be no reform to the welfare state in an independent Scotland.” At least it gets a clear message from the SNP, which is that the budget needs to be restored by £2.5 billion because the SNP has no suggestions.
The Scottish Government’s fiscal commission working group has also received a clear message, which was “Forget about fiscal responsibility and the fact that the welfare budget increased by 40 per cent during Labour’s time in government, because we should not change a single thing.” That approach fundamentally undermines the SNP’s case for independence. It cannot both claim to be fiscally responsible and, at the same time, not deal with the welfare state. It needs to be dealt with because it is not sustainable and it is not possible to carry on as we are. The SNP’s continuing claim that no reform is required lacks credibility.
I recognise that the child benefit changes are not ideal. It is a bit of a crude way of changing the system, but it avoids an expensive means-testing process. I do not think that we can really argue that the top priority should be to protect the highest earners in the country—the wealthiest 15 per cent. I think that it is reasonable to target that group if we are reforming other parts of the welfare state. Although it is not ideal and I would prefer not to do it, I believe that needs must as we reform the welfare state.
Having listened to the speeches from the SNP benches, and some from the Labour benches, one might think that all reform is bad and that nothing should ever change. To me, some of the changes to the welfare state are pretty good.
We all have our own examples of people who we meet in our constituencies and who tell us their story about the welfare system and the changes. Not so long ago, I met a family who told me that they would like to work but it would not pay and it would be difficult to go out to work. They have their family interests at heart—I commend them for that—but they have decided to stay on benefits because it is too difficult and they would not earn enough to work.
The welfare state traps on benefits people who would like to go to work. We have a situation in which someone has to wait five weeks before they get their benefits back if they do not keep the job that they have sought. That happens on many occasions. People fear losing the job that they are going for, so it is not financially worth it to go for it. That is why we have made changes to make work pay, to cut tax on low and middle incomes, and to cap the welfare benefits. In itself, that reform will encourage people into work—and we must all agree in this chamber that work is good for families. We need to encourage people to go to work: it is a good thing. We seem to hear from some people that work is a bad thing that we do not want to encourage or incentivise, but I believe that we need to create a welfare state that encourages.
Let me gently respond to Christina McKelvie. She said that we are attacking women, but she needs to look at just two things. First, the improvements to maternity entitlements have made a significant change to women in work. Secondly, she should consider nursery education for two-year-olds. In England, 40 per cent of the poorest children will get 15 hours a week of nursery education, while in Scotland the rate is only 1 per cent.
You should draw to a close, please.
To me, that is an example of the coalition committing to making a difference for women and making a difference for society.
16:34
I have listened extremely carefully to the debate and will endeavour to deal with the criticisms of the child benefit policy that have been made from around the chamber. Before I do so, I must say that I agree whole-heartedly with the Deputy First Minister and Willie Rennie that it is important to put this debate in context. It is a debate that is happening in this Parliament and in Westminster and it is familiar territory for many countries around the world. Kevin Stewart made that point, although perhaps for a slightly different reason.
We know, from what has been said in previous welfare debates in Holyrood and from the robust exchanges this afternoon, that the parties have substantial differences on the policy way forward. However, looking at the parties’ statements on welfare policy, we can see that there is relative agreement on the starting position. The Deputy First Minister set out some examples of that. However, that starting position is also similar because we know that the welfare bill is huge—it grew by 45 per cent between 2000 and 2010—and because we know that it is likely to grow significantly in the years ahead. We all agree that the debate about what can and, more important, what should be available as a universal benefit is only just beginning.
Malcolm Chisholm set out, very fairly, how he sees the Labour Party paying to maintain universal benefits. Over time, the Labour Party must spell out, in the context of the other universal benefits, whether it would drop universality for them. If the SNP is going to say that it will maintain those universal benefits—as the Deputy First Minister and other speakers did today—it is incumbent on it to explain how that will be paid for, in the context of this debate and the referendum debate.
Those are important issues, and the various political parties in the chamber come at them from different angles. Willie Rennie made a good point when he said that we cannot have a situation in which it pays not to go to work. That is as immoral as some people are trying to say our policies are immoral in hammering the poor all the time. In a minute, I will deal with the allegation that our policies are hammering the poor, because that is simply not true.
Underlying all that is the task that faces the Westminster Government, which is to make substantial savings to significantly reduce the budget deficit that was left by its predecessor.
Does Liz Smith feel that the benefits system should be used as a means of deficit reduction? Does that not undermine the notion that the benefits system should be constructed on the principles of fairness?
I thank the member for his intervention, but there is an economic reality out there. It is there not just because of the size and the needs of that welfare budget; it is there because of the budget deficit. We all have to accept that. Any political party that tries to deny that is not living in the real world.
We have to make justifiable savings, and the coalition Government intends that better-off families should take their share—a policy that it hopes will raise a significant amount of money and will also have a redistributive effect that is important in the context of the overall welfare changes.
We have been strongly criticised this afternoon for the policy that has the effect that the position of a family with two parents who are each earning £49,000 would be very different from that of a family with one person who is earning £60,000, as the latter family would lose their benefits. If members look back through the record, they will see that I raised that issue with concern several months ago. It would be fair to say that the Westminster Government has had the greatest amount of criticism on that point. However, because of that, the Westminster Government has moved to a situation in which some of the loss of benefits will be tapered so that there will be no immediate cut-off, as there was in the original plan. It has listened to concerns about that.
As Drew Smith said, means testing would have to take place if we were to adjust that system to a much more complex system with many more administrative calculations—if we were going to tax on the basis of households rather than individuals, that would lead to considerable means testing and complications.
There have been criticisms of the methodology and the fact that the change is complex. Yes, of course the change is complex, but I come back to the fact that the change must be seen in the context of the overall adjustments that need to take place, including the other tax changes and the targeting of the groups that the coalition Government feels can bear the greater burden.
To sum up, it is important that we have this debate because there is something more fundamental behind the philosophy in all our positions. I accept the SNP’s point that the debate is about the kind of Scotland that we want to live in—that is true. In these times of considerable pressure on welfare, all the political parties must set out how they will deal with that, and we will all come to very different conclusions. It is important that such a debate takes place in the context of the referendum debate, so that we can ensure that the public has a real choice.
16:41
The debate has been fractious at times, but that only underlines the seriousness of the issue before us.
I can agree with much that is in the Government’s motion on child benefit. It is worth reminding ourselves of the scale of the impact: 90,000 families in Scotland will have their benefit income reduced or removed; and 200,000 children across the UK will be plunged into poverty, of whom as many as 15,000 are likely to be in Scotland. As others have rightly pointed out, those are the UK Government’s own figures.
Malcolm Chisholm was right, though, that the SNP is simply wrong to assert that we in the Labour Party do not believe in universal benefits; we do. We are proud to have introduced the family allowance and child benefit, but the difference is that we want to ensure that, where benefits are universal, they are also sustainable and affordable. Child benefit’s importance as a universal benefit is widely recognised because the benefit is for children and is paid predominantly to women. We also chose to target those struggling on low incomes by providing tax credits, but even those are being eroded by the Tory-Lib Dem coalition.
I am fond of quoting the Prime Minister. He previously said that the cuts that would occur as a result of the global recession would fall “on the broadest shoulders”. At first, those cuts fell on the sick and disabled. Now, it appears that they are to fall on women and children as well.
The attack on women and children is not confined to child benefit, as the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill goes even further. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that only the “shirkers”, the people with their curtains drawn, will be affected by his cuts to tax credits and benefits. The language that he uses is, frankly, disgusting, but he is also fundamentally wrong. Not uprating benefits is a direct attack on working people and those striving to support their families.
Contrary to what Willie Rennie said, the UK Government has also made a real-terms cut to statutory maternity pay. According to the House of Commons library, when all the benefit changes are taken together, pregnant women will lose £1,300 during the course of their pregnancy. Taken together, two thirds of the overall hit will be on women, and various members have pointed out the disadvantage that will occur as a result. The impact is clear: poverty will increase.
Jim Eadie was right, because all this is happening at the same time as 8,000 of the UK’s millionaires will enjoy a tax cut of £107,000 per year. That is not just unfair but immoral. Therefore, I join with the many members across the chamber, on the Government benches and on the Labour benches, in condemning the coalition for its approach to welfare reform.
Having said that, I am genuinely disappointed with the SNP position. Back bencher after back bencher glibly fell back on the usual constitutional argument that, with independence, everything will be okay, there will be no deficit or other problems and the sun will always shine each and every day. However, the issue of child poverty is serious. It is a complete abdication of responsibility for the SNP not to strain every sinew to alleviate the problem not at some point in the distant future but to take action now.
Poverty is not simply about a lack of income.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
Before coming to the Parliament, I worked in many of the most disadvantaged communities in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. There I saw that poverty is shaped by poor health, poor educational attainment, the lack of a job and low self-esteem—people in communities locked into a cycle of despair. There I saw that the way out of poverty is through having access to opportunity and support to access employment.
The SNP Government has the power to deal with that. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report to which Drew Smith, Neil Bibby and Jayne Baxter all rightly drew attention was clear on that point.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Tom MacInnes, the author of the report, said:
“with political debate dominated by the referendum on independence, it’s important to point out that issues that are central to tackling poverty, such as health, childcare, schools and housing fall within the current legislative powers of the Scottish Government. The problems highlighted in this report cannot wait; action can and should be taken now.”
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not think that the member is taking interventions, Mr Hepburn.
I believe fundamentally that the SNP knows that it can do something. I remind the SNP that, under Labour, the percentage of children in absolute poverty in Scotland fell from 28 per cent in 1998-99 to 12 per cent in 2005-06. I am very proud that that was the highest fall across the United Kingdom, where a Labour Government lifted half a million children out of poverty. The SNP should please not tell me that it lacks the power. We more than halved child poverty. Where is the SNP’s ambition?
Of course, we can judge the SNP Government on its actions not its rhetoric. Under this SNP Government, the housing budget has been cut by £40 million and the college budget has been cut by £35 million.
Will the member give way?
Absolutely not. The member should listen.
Under this SNP Government, the health budget has been cut in real terms, 2,500 nurses have been cut from the health service and we are now seeing trolley waits at accident and emergency departments. Under this SNP Government, no progress has been made on reducing child poverty, as the figures have flatlined, and the average Scottish household has been around £1,200 a year worse off than in the previous year—that is from the Government’s own figures.
The SNP promises much but delivers little. Nowhere was that better illustrated than in Neil Bibby’s speech. The SNP promised 600 hours of nursery provision for each child in 2007. That was welcome, but it was not delivered by 2011. In fact, if I recall, it was promised three times. Now it has been put on pause until 2014 or beyond. Will we ever see it?
The SNP might talk the talk—in fact, there is a lot of talk in the chamber at the moment—but the evidence suggests that it does not walk the walk. Everything that the SNP does is viewed through a constitutional prism. As the motion demonstrates, even tackling child poverty is put on pause. In effect, the SNP is telling the poor people of Scotland, “Wait four years and then we will get round to you.” What happens if the SNP loses the independence vote? There will be no answer for the children and families currently in poverty. [Interruption.]
Order.
Despite the noise, I regret the fact that, regardless of what SNP members say, their agenda is based on the politics of identity. That is not socially progressive. We on the Labour benches believe in fairness and social justice. The fundamental difference between us and the SNP is that we do something about it. While the SNP continues to care only about independence, the children of Scotland are left waiting.
I call Margaret Burgess to wind up the debate on behalf of the Government. Minister, you have 10 minutes or thereabouts—until 5 o’clock.
16:49
I am not sure whether, in 10 minutes, I will be able to respond to everything that has been said, but I will certainly try to cover the major points.
The debate has been about child benefit but, more importantly for me, it is about child poverty. Jackie Baillie just paid a disservice to that. Child poverty matters. We are tackling it, and it is a priority for the Scottish Government. We are doing what we can within the powers that we have—I know that Jackie Baillie does not like us saying that.
The Labour Party has been open and candid today about its solution: sit back and wait until we get a Labour Government in the UK. That is what Labour members said earlier in the debate. Labour can sit on the Opposition benches with that as its policy, but we are doing something about child poverty.
I say categorically that children matter to me and child poverty matters to me. Drew Smith indicated that we care only about children in Scotland. I care about children who are in poverty or disadvantaged anywhere in the world, but the only place where we can do something about it and lead the way is here in Scotland. That is what we will do.
I will get round to Alex Johnstone’s comments later.
A lot is going on in Scotland, and we are doing what we can within our powers to tackle poverty. We have heard how the Labour Party would deal with poverty: spend money. It says that we are not spending enough on education, childcare and housing. It says that we are not spending enough on every single thing that has been talked about, but it has come up with no ideas and has not told us where we are spending too much money. We are on a fixed budget, so the Labour Party is basically saying that we are spending too much on something but has not yet told us what. That is what I want to know. I will wait for the answer.
Willie Rennie asked what the SNP would do when it has to work on a budget. The SNP is working on a budget in the Scottish Parliament. We are balancing the budget and will do the same when we have powers to raise our own finances.
Does that mean that Margaret Burgess will immediately restore the £2.5 billion to the welfare budget?
At the moment, Scotland pays that £2.5 billion into the UK economy. It is not gone yet; the UK Government is cutting it.
As a number of members have mentioned, taking £2.5 billion out of the economy affects not only people on benefits, low-income earners or even high-income earners. When we take money out of the economy, it goes out of the pockets of those who spend it in their local shops and businesses. In all our constituencies throughout Scotland, local shops and businesses will lose that money as well.
I see Alex Johnstone nodding his head in agreement with that as a good idea. I do not think that it is a good idea. He is keen to promote the number of people who are being taken out of tax. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that, taking the tax and benefits measures into account, there is still a regressive tax and the low-income groups are losing out more.
A bigger gap is being created between the poor and those who are not poor. We are trying to close that gap, but all the efforts that we are making are being undermined by what is happening in other measures. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on poverty and social inclusion said that we are unlikely to make progress because of the damaging welfare reforms.
We cannot get away from the problem with welfare reform. We take it in context. Liz Smith has given her view on it. Our view is that we should start with the kind of society in which we want to live—a society that cares about people, in which people look out for one another, that protects our poorest and most vulnerable and that, most importantly, puts children at its heart because children are our future.
I regret a bit that the debate has gone the way that it has, because we should be talking about children and the future.
I find it difficult to come to terms with the figures that have been given about the additional children who are going into poverty. They are figures from the UK coalition Government. It tells us that that will happen, but it still goes ahead with the changes to child benefit. I ask it how much it cares about children. It knows that it will put more children into poverty, and yet it is still ploughing ahead with its measures. I cannot agree with that; I think that that is a disgraceful position.
Does the minister accept that the child benefit policy targets those who are most able to afford it to carry most of the burden?
I think that someone described the Welfare Reform Act 2012 as a shambles. Even the Tories and the Liberal Democrats would have to agree. It is an absolute pig’s breakfast of a piece of legislation. It makes no sense whatever. The Conservatives have said that those with the broadest shoulders will carry the burden, but the way in which the act is being implemented means that those with the broadest shoulders are not carrying the burden. A family in which one person earns £60,000 a year gets no child benefit, whereas a family in which both partners earn £49,000—which will have a household income of almost £100,000—gets child benefit. Those with the broadest shoulders are not carrying the burden. The Conservatives are missing that point.
I would prefer it if the UK Government just said, “We got it wrong.” It tried to fix things and David Cameron tried to sort out the situation, but it made things worse. The Conservatives should admit that they got it badly wrong, but they are ploughing ahead, and the Liberals are supporting them.
I think it was Mark McDonald who mentioned the number of things that the Scottish Government is doing. He mentioned the social wage. Jayne Baxter asked what we are doing to help people to deal with welfare reform. We are doing quite a lot. [Interruption.] What are we doing? We are setting up the Scottish welfare fund, as has been mentioned. The council tax freeze is helping every family in Scotland. The social wage is an example of how we, as a Government, are helping people.
We are mitigating the effects of welfare reform through the Scottish welfare fund. Along with local authorities, we are making up the 10 per cent cut in council tax benefit to ensure that the most vulnerable do not lose out to an even greater extent. We have put money into the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland to provide training and information.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No. I have taken several interventions and I will not give way to members who would not take interventions. Jackie Baillie said that she would not take an intervention and told us to listen. I will do the same: I am not taking an intervention; the member should listen.
We are mitigating the effects of welfare reform. We have introduced the social wage, which is helping every family in Scotland.
I want to talk about the effect that some of the welfare reform changes are having on people in the housing sector. Kevin Stewart said that we should talk about what things are like for people in our constituencies. This week, I spoke to someone—not from my constituency—who had a mental health problem and who had regained the confidence to go to work through volunteering. She got a temporary job and then another temporary job before her health went backwards and she lost the job. She will now be subject to the bedroom tax because her grown-up son has left the house, which is in the area where she got all her support. That is what Alex Johnstone and his Liberal colleagues are doing to people. It is not incentivising them into work; it is acting as a disincentive to work. The Conservatives and Liberals should think about that.
I think that I am running out of time.
You have 45 seconds left.
I know that members of the other parties will not like this, but the Scottish Government is looking to have a system that is about fairness and which is a mark of a just society. Like the Scottish Government, I believe that to fully achieve that, the Parliament must have control over the powers that are needed to deliver it, which will come only with independence.