Meeting of the Parliament 26 November 2015
Welfare reform at Westminster has achieved two things. First, it has deprived the most vulnerable and needy in our communities of the capacity to feed and clothe themselves without anxiety and has left them struggling with having to go to a food bank or not having a warm home—or sometimes any home at all. Secondly, it has aggravated existing inequality for women.
The term “welfare” is popular with the chancellor. I cannot help but feel that he quite likes the Dickensian idea of the worthy poor and the magnanimity of those who offer charity—that big society that the Tories talked about. We live in the 21st century, not the 19th century, and we ought to have moved on from workhouses and soup kitchens, but the gap between rich and poor extends even wider. While international investors pour their millions into expensive houses in Kensington and Chelsea, many of my constituents are struggling to find a few pounds to put into their gas meters.
Research provided to the committee by Child Poverty Action Group and others tells us time and again that most of the people who use food banks are in work or have had their benefit payments sanctioned for sometimes the most absurd of reasons. Citizens Advice Scotland told the committee of a case of a woman who was heading to the jobcentre when her four-year-old needed the toilet—those of us who have had kids have all been there; they want to try out every bathroom. She was sanctioned for 12 weeks for being 10 minutes late.
Barnardo’s told the committee:
“We are aware in Scotland that the current system of benefit sanctions is nowhere near fit for purpose. Sanctions are regularly applied unfairly, leaving people with little or no money at all for long periods. That causes severe hardship for many claimants and can have a very negative impact not only on their own health and wellbeing but that of their families too.”
It added that when universal credit is fully rolled out, women will probably lose out even more. Women will be dependent on the male breadwinner for the money to run the house, and if he has other ideas about how to spend that money, it will be the partners who have to try and sweep up the mess of debt, lack of food and probably a housing crisis.
CAS evidence to the committee emphasised that women use social services more than men do. The reasons are straightforward: they tend to be the carers of children, elderly and infirm parents, and relatives with special needs, including their own children, and many are in low-paid and part-time work. They have missed out on making a prosperous career for themselves because they have put their families first. They should not be sanctioned for that.
This reality is borne out by CAS, which has found that women are more likely to seek advice on housing benefit, working tax credits, child tax credits, child benefit and income support. Changes to those benefits will have a disproportionate impact on women. Housing benefit problems are among the most common benefit problems that women bring to CAS. This Scottish Government does everything it can to mitigate the horrendous impact of the bedroom tax, but there are limitations on what we are allowed to do.
An east of Scotland citizens advice bureau reported the case of a client who had high rent arrears. She thought that she was in receipt of housing benefit but discovered that that support had stopped, as she had working non-dependents—adult children—living with her. The client had an arrangement in place to pay the arrears and wanted to apply for a discretionary housing payment, but she was advised that she could not do that if she was not in receipt of housing benefit. The complications of the system are absolutely impenetrable.
Changes to iII-health and disability payments have had a hugely damaging impact already, and the situation is set to get worse. PIP will take tens of thousands out of what is currently the DLA system. CAS warned the committee that the endless confusion, delays and backlog will do nothing to support the introduction of PIP.
The concept that the state needs to help families on low incomes has vanished, yet pay rates are hopelessly inadequate. We have a moral and a financial duty to support people in need—for whatever reason—and we need the right framework in which to do that.
I do not accept the assumption of public school boys in London, who would never venture into a cut-price food store, that we can all make a decent income and support ourselves and our families. David Cameron once said that he was born with not one but two silver spoons in his mouth. I say, try a week living on benefits in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. Perhaps you could learn a lot.
The Scottish Government rightly highlights the huge contribution made by carers, most eloquently described by my colleague Joan McAlpine in her contribution.
And there’s the rub—or part of it. As CAS says:
“benefit conditionality remains reserved to the UK Government. The current draft of the Scotland Bill is silent on the matter and we do not yet know the extent to which Scottish employment services may be subject to that regime.”
The Institute of Fiscal Studies has just reported that 2.6 million working families will be £1,600 worse off as a result of the chancellor’s statement yesterday. What do we need? We need to face the facts. The current system discriminates against and fails women time and again: whether they are parents, carers, have a disability, are victims of domestic violence, have a long-term condition, are a refugee or have other cultural barriers, the system fails them. A future social security system for Scotland needs to have security at its heart. In order to get Britain working, we have to get Britain’s women working, and that will not happen under the present system.
16:01