The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I agree with him to some extent. We have had significant success with our Opportunities for All programme. He obviously has some insight into what I was going to say. I will come on to that later in my speech.
The people of Scotland deserve better. We need a streamlined system that looks holistically at how we support people back to work and what kind of employment they are offered, rather than the random approach that seems to take place much of the time at present. We need to look at people’s skill sets and expertise and what potential they have to offer. We hear much talk of aspiration from the Government Benches, yet the stream of people I have had through my door at constituency surgeries in Livingston in the past few weeks, concerned about benefit cuts and sanctions, suggests that the concept of aspiration and opportunity certainly did not make its way into this part of the Bill. If we are truly to give the unemployed opportunities through these programmes, the Scottish Parliament must have the powers it needs at its disposal, to tailor these programmes for those most in need.
As the devolution committee pointed out at paragraph 303, the original Scotland Act 1998 reserved employment policy. That included job search and support, with the exception of careers services and training for employment. Draft clause 22, which became clause 26 in the published Bill, set out further exceptions to the reservation in the 1998 Act: assisting disabled persons to select, obtain and retain employment, and assisting persons claiming reserved benefits who are at risk of long-term unemployment to select, obtain and retain employment, where the assistance is for at least a year.
However, a range of organisations expressed a view on whether the suggested clause delivered on the Smith agreement. At paragraph 306 Inclusion Scotland is quoted as saying in its written evidence:
“The Smith Commission proposes that ‘The Scottish Parliament will have all powers over support for unemployed people through the employment programmes currently contracted by DWP.’ However, both the narrative and draft clauses appear to restrict this power to employment support schemes that last over a year. It is not clear why this restriction has been included and it appears to be a direct contradiction of the Smith Commission proposal.”
Inclusion Scotland argued that
“the most effective employment support schemes are short term schemes designed to identify the barriers preventing someone gaining employment and providing support, training and assistance to overcome these. If a scheme lasts for more than a year without supporting someone into employment, surely it has failed?”
Inclusion Scotland also pointed out that the UK Government also appear to have arbitrarily applied the reference to conditionality and sanctioning for universal credit to devolved employment support schemes, including the use of mandatory placements. It states:
“It is not clear how this is compatible with the Scottish Parliament having all powers over support for unemployed people through the employment programme, for example if the Scottish Parliament determines that participation in such schemes should be voluntary.”
5.15 pm
The Scottish Government’s view, presented to the devolution committee, was that the proposed clause fell short of implementing the Smith commission’s recommendations and that the Scottish Parliament should have all powers over support for unemployed people through the employment programmes currently contracted by the Department for Work and Pensions. In a follow-up letter after giving evidence to the Committee, Deputy First Minister John Swinney stated:
“We strongly agree with the concerns about employment raised in evidence to the Committee. The main effect of Clause 22”—
now clause 26—
“of the draft Scotland Bill suggested by UK Government is that it would devolve Work Programme and Work Choice only. We believe that devolution of employment support on this basis is inconsistent with both the letter and spirit of paragraph 57 of the Smith Commission report”.
The relationship between devolved and reserved powers and the two Governments is particularly important in relation to employment programmes. The importance of devolving those powers was highlighted by Jim McCormick of the Social Security Advisory Committee when he stated in evidence to the devolution committee:
“It strikes me that a revised work programme could help people at risk of long-term unemployment and disabled people into work and could support them in staying in work. Under the proposals, we might end up in a situation in which future public service providers in Scotland—which might be third sector providers—would be accountable to the Scottish Parliament for their financial performance and their programme performance but would still have to apply a conditionality system and a sanctions regime to those programmes.
As well as creating problems for claimants, that would create strange incentives for providers—it would create incentives for gaming and false reporting. That is a particularly jagged edge, because one thing that we know about the current social security system and the welfare reforms is that a tougher sanctions system has caused a great deal of difficulty for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. That jagged edge around
conditionality is a particular cause for concern.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, 19 February 2015; c. 15.]
In paragraph 311 of its report the devolution committee explored the interaction between reserved and devolved programmes
“particularly with regard to the DWP conditionality and sanctions regime remaining reserved”.
The report stated that that
“has been of particular concern to some of our witnesses.”
For example, John Dickie told the Committee that
“as far as working-age benefits are concerned, the current reserved conditionality and sanctions regime, which is undermining people’s attempts to move into work and towards the labour market, will still apply. That comes back to Jim McCormick’s point about the jagged edge between what we in Scotland might want to do differently in devolved employment programmes and the requirement for those programmes to work within a reserved benefits regime that too often imposes arbitrary conditions or conditions that are not helpful in supporting people to move into work and which imposes damaging sanctions on them when they fail to meet those conditions.”
That has been discussed widely today. John also stated that he hoped that we could
“reduce the number of inappropriate or arbitrary tasks that people have to undertake to meet the benefit requirements. However, there will be a limit to that, because the benefits regime will be as it is now—unless, of course, we manage to get it changed in the way that we want.”
If the Conservative Government continue to vote as they have done, we will certainly not get what we want and people will continue to be sanctioned in the most iniquitous way. We in the SNP want an end to the punitive and iniquitous benefit sanctions that disproportionately affect women and vulnerable people and often those with mental health problems. In a modern society such as ours, how can we justify, or indeed explain, nearly 150,000 sanctions being applied in Scotland, affecting nearly 85,000 individuals, including nearly 3,000 disabled people, between the end of 2012 and September 2014? If we want to help people to find a job, how is making them hungry and unable to pay Bills and increasing their debt supporting them to do that?
Professor David Webster has highlighted that the number of sanctions resulting from the Work programme is, sadly, considerably higher than the number of people obtaining jobs from it. In Scotland, 46,265 sanctions were applied between June 2011 and March 2014 because claimants failed to participate in the Work programme. During the same period, 26,740 job outcomes resulted from the Work programme. That is rather ironic and very sad.
Dame Anne Begg, the former Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, has said:
“Benefit sanctions are controversial because they withhold subsistence-level benefits from people who may have little or no other income. We agree that benefit conditionality is necessary but it is essential that policy is based on clear evidence of what works in terms of encouraging people to take up the support which is available to help them get back into work. The policy must then be applied fairly and proportionately. The system must also be capable of identifying and protecting vulnerable people, including those with mental health problems and learning disabilities.”
Turning to the Access to Work programme and the lack of clarity in this area, John Swinney said:
“In respect of Access to Work, we have asked the UK Government to clarify whether Access to Work will be devolved under clause 22”—
now clause 26—
“and they have made clear their expectation that as this programme is a JobCentre Plus service to customers and not a contracted employment programme it will remain reserved.”
In response, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions explained that there were two different definitions because
“claimants need different types of support to enter the job market and that, in the early stages, some of this comes from Jobcentre Plus, which remains a reserved issue. In the longer-term, claimants are referred onto Work Programme or Work Choice and the aspects of the provisions to be devolved.”
In their response to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee report, the Scottish Government made their view clear:
“Clause 26 of the Scotland Bill is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of paragraph 57 of the Smith Commission Heads Of Agreement”.
Scottish Ministers think the relevant clause of the Bill “contains limitations” that mean it does not deliver on Smith in full. Those limitations are that support can only be provided to, first, those at risk of long-term unemployment; secondly, those claiming reserved benefits; or, thirdly, for assistance lasting for at least one year.
The key policy point is that the way to tackle long-term unemployment is to intervene early. Indeed, one of our main criticisms of the current Work programme is the time people have to be unemployed before the programme is open to them. We wait until people are long-term unemployed—nine months for those up to 24, and 12 months thereafter—before acting, when we should act to support them into employment before they become long-term unemployed.