Hansard

I thank the committee for what I felt, as an outsider to the committee, was a wide-ranging and thorough report. It is good that new welfare powers are to be devolved to Scotland, but, of course, the powers are only part of the question. I have a couple of main questions: can we do better with the money that we have or are going to have; and do we need more money to create a better system?

From what I can see in the report, we could do better with the existing money. Recommendations such as moving away from monthly payments and single-household payments would be positive, as would, in some cases, making rent payments directly to the landlord.

Some of the quotes in paragraph 49 of the report, in the section that concerns universal credit, are telling and struck a chord with me and, I think, some of my constituents. The paragraph deals with the issue of monthly payments, saying:

“In relation to monthly payments, it was recognised that this is not the lived reality for many benefit claimants whose lives are not so ordered. It will also give rise to issues around budgeting and being ‘cash rich’ at the start of the month”.

It goes on to quote Morag Gillespie of Glasgow Caledonian University, who said:

“On the one hand, we are looking for people to live on quite a hand-to-mouth basis—lots of people still get paid and live from week to week or fortnight to fortnight—while, on the other, we almost want to pretend that they are white-collar workers with monthly salaries. Lots of people’s lives are not quite that tidy, and we need to accommodate the differences.”—[Official Report, Welfare Reform Committee, 19 May 2015; c 32.]

The committee and I certainly desire to accommodate the differences, but we do not see very much of that approach on the part of the DWP. Clearly, there can be a disconnect between the reality that many ordinary folk live and the theoretical existences that are imagined for them by some of the mandarins in Westminster.

The report highlights some particular issues of concern. The main one is sanctions, which I have been concerned about for a considerable length of time. I have always felt that, while the bedroom tax can reduce people’s income unjustifiably, sanctions can completely remove people’s income, which is so much worse.

One of the highlighted conclusions of the committee’s report, at paragraph 80, states:

“The Committee has previously reported on the impact of sanctions. It continues to urge the DWP to review how its policies are being applied”.

I broadly agree with that paragraph. However, I have some questions about paragraph 78, which states:

“The Committee has always agreed that some kind of conditionality is important.”

Surely we must accept that every single person in the UK or in Scotland deserves food and shelter as the absolute minimum. After all, we accept that prisoners are entitled to those things unconditionally, so everyone else should get at least the same. Every individual and every family should get a certain minimum income that is completely unconditional, no matter what they do or do not do.

Engender made that point in referring to a citizen’s income in its list of recommendations, and we need to think about that option as we move forward.

Employment is another topic that the report deals with. Paragraph 14 notes that universal credit was intended to encourage

“everyone to gain and sustain employment”.

However, I agree with those who argue that employment is not the right course for everyone. Like it or not, a number of women—as has been mentioned in previous speeches—are still the main carers for the older generation, the younger generation and others, as Christina McKelvie highlighted. We as a society benefit from those carers performing that key role, and in turn we need to accept that there are some people whom we should support, in the long term if necessary. They should not have to seek employment, even though, technically, they might be able to do so.

I am happy with the suggestion that we move towards using the term “social security” rather than “welfare”. On the subject of universal credit, things have moved on since the report was written and we welcome the relaxation of the proposed cuts. However, if the same overall savings are to be made in the welfare budget, there must be concerns about where that will hit.

Devolution of powers is a key element as we move forward. The fiscal framework, which members have mentioned, is meant to ensure fairness and no detriment to Westminster or Scotland as a result of powers being devolved. However, I remain sceptical about that, and the signs that we have seen so far have not been good.

The original theory was that whichever Parliament made changes would incur the subsequent costs. However, with the tax powers that we have so far, we have seen that Westminster has made the changes but this Parliament has had to write the cheque for all the costs. The precedents are not good, and that concerns me with regard to welfare. Whatever new powers we end up with, we will still face a limited budget. If we want a more generous welfare system, especially for women, the question is where the money will come from.

The obvious options are to reduce spending in some other area or perhaps to raise taxes. We are being more consensual today because we are debating a committee report, and I support that. However, we will have real choices to make as we go through the budget process. That will be challenging, and I call on all parties to be realistic. If they want more money in one place, they will have to tell us where it comes from.