| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Salmond: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us about the movement of poor people between Spain and France. Does he have any knowledge of that movement? Does he think that the substantial differences in social security between those two countries is a significant factor in that movement?
Mr. McAllion: I have some knowledge of the differences between Spain and France, but I live in Scotland, which shares a border with England. I am speaking about Scotland and England, not Spain and France. If the hon. Gentleman walks out on to the streets outside, he will find poor Scots from every city in Scotland. They come to London looking for help and for benefit. He is trying to minimise a very serious problem. It would be absolute nonsense to establish a different social security system in Scotland from that which pertains in the other parts of this island. If he does not know that, he should immediately come to his senses.
Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that some aspects of social security policy, such as
- "National Assistance . . . charges for local authority accommodation . . . social welfare services . . . payments towards maintenance of children . . . promotion of welfare of children in need",
Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in confusing the type of payments that should be made
through local authority social work departments with the type of payments that are made through the social security system, which is run at a United Kingdom level. He does not live in Scotland. If he did live in Scotland and understood the social security system, he would not make such inane interventions. The two systems cannot be compared.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) rose--
Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McAllion: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who used to live in Scotland, because we know that she read the Herald.
Mrs. Laing: Did the hon. Gentleman really mean what he said a moment ago--that Scots come south to London looking for benefit? I thought that we came south to London looking for work.
Mr. McAllion: The hon. Member for Epping Forest forgets that we live in a capitalist system, and that those people, after they get here, do not find work. They are thrown on to benefit, and into bed-and-breakfast accommodation and all kinds of horrors--which not only poor Scots in London but poor Londoners have to face.
A capitalist system is a wonderful thing if one gets to the top, with a good job and a nice house. However, for the poor and those without power, wealth or resources--from the other end of the telescope, which has been mentioned earlier in the debate--the system is not so marvellous. If the hon. Member for Epping Forest saw the capitalist system through their eyes, she might understand that we need a socialist system in the United Kingdom--all of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Swayne:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the regrettable problem to which he referred--the number of Scots in London who are on benefit but came looking for work--exists under the current unified social security system? Therefore, there is potential--if the Scottish Parliament has control over its own system--to improve the situation.
Mr. McAllion:
The problem with the current social security system is not that it is unified across the United Kingdom but that it is under-resourced. The solution to the problem is not to break up the United Kingdom social security system. I passionately believe that people--from whatever part of this island they come--have the same rights to the same social security benefits. I hold to that basic principle, which is why I shall gladly oppose amendment No. 406.
I should like to raise several issues with my hon. Friend the Minister. We have been told that funding and administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit should be a reserved matter. The Bill states that
The housing benefit level is very closely linked to rent levels in the rented sector. As my hon. Friend knows, the rented sector in Scotland is dominated by local authorities--which are by far the largest element in the rented sector. The voluntary and private sectors are minuscule compared with the Scottish council sector. He knows also that funding to maintain low rents--such as housing support grants and rate fund contributions--was gradually withdrawn by successive Tory Governments. Consequently, rents went ever upwards, and housing benefit levels went up with them. The last figure that I saw, which is out of date, was that housing benefit in Scotland is costing about £900 million annually.
The only sure way of reducing that housing benefit level is to reduce the rent levels that must be paid by those on low incomes. Rent level reductions can be achieved only by co-operation between the Scottish Parliament and local authorities. It will be for the Scottish Parliament to find funding to allow local authorities to reduce rents, and thereby to reduce the housing benefit bill.
What worries me is that the Scottish Parliament, if it spends some of its scarce resources on bringing down rent levels, will not gain the benefits of those reductions. The benefits will accrue to the Westminster Parliament, which will have a much-reduced housing benefit bill. I should like to know how those benefits can accrue to the Scottish Parliament, rather than being transferred to the Westminster Parliament.
Mr. Salmond:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept the extension of that point? Under the Government's proposals, it would be a temptation--although not in any administration in which I was involved--to increase rents, to increase the flow of housing benefit.
Mr. McAllion:
It is not only a temptation--it happens in the real world. Every hon. Member representing a constituency in Scotland is aware that councils starved of cash simply raise rents. They know that 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of their tenants receive housing benefit and that someone else will pay the bill. We have to break out of that trap. I am trying to get the Government so say how they intend to fund the method by which we bring down rents in Scotland, and I hope that the actions of the Scottish Parliament in doing that will be rewarded by the savings in housing benefit being transferred back to it.
While I am talking about housing, may I ask my hon. Friend to give some thought to the stock transfer process, and especially the stock of Scottish Homes, which is being transferred into the voluntary sector? While we had Scottish Homes, the old Scottish Special Housing Association, housing benefit for its tenants was administered by Scottish Homes itself.
Of course, now that Scottish Homes has ceased to be a landlord and its tenants are being transferred into the voluntary sector, the claims for housing benefit are placed on the local authority in the appropriate area. However, local authorities have not been recompensed for the additional burden that they have had to take on as a result of voluntary stock transfers. I should be interested to know what the Government intend to do about that.
I deal now with the other payments made by social work departments, in respect of social security in particular. I am very conscious of the work of welfare rights officers who do a tremendous amount of good across Scotland, helping people with their benefit claims. They are funded solely through social work departments and the local authorities themselves, even though they are an integral part of the social security system in Scotland. It is unfair that local authorities are not recompensed for the fact that they employ welfare rights officers to help the smooth operation of the benefit system. Have the Government any plans to tackle that problem?
Finally, I draw attention to the operation of the social security system and the fact that, for example, the jobseeker's allowance regime and the benefit integrity project are forcing people off benefit. This sometimes has the effect of forcing people into abject poverty and out of the social security system. People in such circumstances often turn to the local authority for assistance, and it is the social work department that has to pick up the bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) spoke about a family in his constituency who had to get section 10 payments under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 because the system failed them. It is unfair to expect the Scottish Parliament and local authorities to provide a safety net for people who have been swept out of the social security system by changes implemented at Westminster.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said that there was a strong demand in Scotland for a different approach to social security. I deny that in the sense that it is not only in Scotland that such a demand exists. He also mentioned the cuts to the single parent benefit. Forty-seven Labour Members voted against those cuts, and only a minority came from Scotland--the vast majority came from England.
"administration and funding of housing benefit and council tax benefit by local authorities"
are illustrations of reservation. Why will Government amendment No. 545 remove the phrase "by local authorities"? I hope that that does not mean that the
Government plan on taking responsibility for administration of housing benefit from local authorities and on establishing a new system in Scotland to administer housing benefit. I should like an answer to that question.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |