The Positive Case for Pensions

Pension provision has become one of the key economic battlegrounds for the Independence debate.  When it comes to economic security in retirement, there is strong and positive case for why we are better to stay together as part of a joined up UK.

The first thing to say is that whilst our current pension system is not perfect, many of the benefits of the UK pension system are universally acknowledged.  There are many changes I would like to see to our benefits and pension systems, but breaking away from the financial security of the current UK state pension scheme is not one of them.

In our UK welfare system, Scots contribute resources to the common pool, and take benefits from it. Perhaps the most significant of these is the old-age pension, introduced first by a Welsh Liberal 100 years ago, but integrated into a wider system of national insurance and social security by an English Labour minister. When you are out of work in Glasgow your benefits are paid by the taxes of someone in work in Glamorgan. When you retire in Lanark your pension is paid by the taxes of a young person in Liverpool starting out in working life.

The UK has learned the hard way how to build a sustainable pension system.  The system that is now being built here offers a better combination of fairness, sustainability and predictability than most other countries in both the developed and emerging worlds.

It is not a system that is going to make anyone rich, but it will deliver, will stand the test of time and provides incentives and confidence for people to plan for their own retirement. It is a pension system that doesn’t over-promise and it is realistic about what can be delivered.  It provides people with the reassurance that, when it is time for them to retire, the benefits they thought would be there are actually there.

Looking to the future more people are living for longer.  The ratio of people receiving their pension compared to the percentage of people in work is rising. This will put pressure on public finances across the UK.  However the position in Scotland is worse with the proportion of people over pension age in Scotland projected to be higher than in the rest of the UK.  That will increase the pension bill.  

Carrying this cost is a bigger problem for Scotland than for the rest of the UK because of the age structure of our population. Within the union, however, that risk is pooled with the whole country – 60m people across a broad range of employment, age and earning power - and will not have to be borne purely out of Scottish resources. That’s a positive benefit of the union for Scotland.

The SNP Government, in its White Paper on Scotland future has proposed that an independent Scotland would have a more generous state pension system than is currently provided across the UK.  The headlines are a small increase in the state pension to £160 per week and the introduction of a “triple lock” to ensure the state pension always rose by more than average incomes, prices or inflation whichever is the higher.  Both good policies.  However, the White Paper (see Chapter 4, pages 138 – 150) whilst describing in detail the changes to the pension system an SNP administration would make, does not provide any detailed costings of these changes nor any analysis of the fiscal impact of the ageing population in Scotland in future years.  Nor does it make clear whether it will set up its own state pension fund and how it will be funded if it does.  Indeed the language talks about Scotland “administering” pensions on behalf of Scottish pensioners.  Does this mean it intends to reach an agreement with rUK to remain part of the UK fund, whilst deciding on its own rules for how it spends its share of the state pension “pot”. 

A recent Institute of Fiscal Studies Report has looked at the detail.  It concludes: “It seems likely that this slightly more generous system could not be sustained in the long term without discretionary tax rises or further cuts to spending on public services.”

The other key argument for remaining part of the UK is the potential risk to occupational and private pensions, which more and more working people rely on to top up the basic state provision.  EU rules on pension schemes operating in more than one country (“cross-border schemes”) are strict; they have to be fully funded and comply with much stricter actuarial standards than apply to single state schemes.  There is a real risk that Scottish pension contributions for occupational schemes may have to rise, benefits fall, separate schemes be set up just for Scottish employees, or even close.   The SNP recognise this in their White Paper (p148) and talk of negotiating transitional arrangements.  This seems to me, however, to be a risk that is just not worth taking.  Why risk changes to occupational pension arrangement that demonstrably work now?

The UK pension system is not perfect of course, nor is the system in any nation. But the UK system is built, it is sustainable and it has a broad spread of population to support it; a system built through the generations and there for the generations to come. That's something worth keeping.

The only way for Scotland to remain a partner in the UK pensions system is for Scotland to remain a partner in the UK, pooling and sharing our resources. For what is the UK national pension system but a form of collective insurance against poverty & indignity in old age where risk and reward is shared across classes, across regions, across nations, and across generations young and old.

It does makes sense to look at devolving some aspects of the benefits system to Holyrood e.g. housing benefit so that the detail of welfare policies could be better adapted to the different priorities and demographics in Scotland.  But when it comes to Pensions, I believe we really are better together.

It can take 50 years to prove that a pensions system works and by then it is too late to do anything about it if it doesn’t. In that respect, we are being asked by the Yes Campaign to make a calculated gamble.  That’s not a risk I think is worth taking.

Read more...

Better Together at Tain High School

Text of my speech to 5th and 6th year pupils at Tain High School this morning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Good morning.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you on behalf of Better Together.

We are a cross-party group campaigning for a NO vote in the independence referendum on 18th September.

You will probably be expecting a well-rehearsed list of scare stories about independence.

Project Fear I think we are called.

Facts, figures and fears about joining the EU, giving up the Pound, Bank of England control, can we afford our pensions?

What happens when the oil runs out?

Well I'm not going to do any of that.

I want to talk about my vision for Scotland and why I think we really will be Better Together in the UK.

I’d like to start by taking SNP Deputy Leader Nicola Sturgeon’s advice.

In her speech in December 2012, the Deputy First Minister said this:

 “I ask you, as you make up your minds over these next two years, to base your decision not on how Scottish or British you feel, but on what kind of country you want Scotland to be and how best you think that can be achieved.”

So what is the Independence Referendum really about?

The SNP seem to be making it about what form of government can best deliver what the people of Scotland need.   Their argument, simply put, is that an independent Scotland can run its own affairs in the best interests of Scots than a Westminster government with a different agenda.

And while we endure the baleful effects on living standards of a Tory/LibDem Coalition driving through its, free market, small government, anti public sector, benefits cutting agenda that’s a powerful argument.

We hear much talk from the YES Campaign about democracy, about delivering a government for Scotland that better reflects the will of the people of Scotland than now.

But it’s not a joined up UK that is holding Scotland back. 

It’s the SNP who want to put it all at risk by a leap of faith into the unknown.

Everything will be fine in an independent Scotland because the SNP will make it so.

Europe will fast-track our EU membership because it’s the will of the Scottish people.

The rest of the UK will agree to a sterling zone because it’s in THEIR interests, whilst Scotland competes for jobs and investments with an Irish-style low tax policy for big corporates.

And look what happened there.

The SNP know this.  But in pursuit of their own ideology they are ready to plunge Scotland into years of economic uncertainty. 

In pursuit of their own interest they will not take some of the actions they could take now to mitigate some of the worst effects of the Tory/LibDem coalition.

They talk about Project Fear and Project Hope. 

But it’s what they are proposing that risks plunging Scotland into a generation of fear, uncertainty and doubt.

I’m a Labour activist.

I believe the kind of country I want Scotland to be is best delivered by progressive politics based on fairness, equal opportunity and social justice.

A Scotland with its own distinct political and economic identity but part of a socially progressive United Kingdom which shares those values, working together to deliver them.

So what does staying together in the UK mean for young people like you?

It means the best opportunity to work anywhere you want in the country without any artificial barriers.

It means that if you want to go on to study at a university or college you can choose the best one in the UK that suits what you want to do and not be limited by fees or borders.

The daughter of a friend of mine in Edinburgh has just chosen to study at Exeter rather than Stirling because it was a better course.  I’d never like to see her options limited.

First and foremost what we need in Scotland is a strong economy.

A strong economy that delivers decent jobs and a decent standard of living.

That’s hard enough in the current climate.

I think it will be harder still with the leap of faith proposed by the YES campaign.

Let me give you an example.

I run a small business.  We are a specialist IT Company.  We have clients all over the UK, from Invergordon to Edinburgh, in Birmingham, London and Cornwall.

We compete for that business against companies in each of those regions.

Times are tough.  Winning business and keeping people employed is hard.

Where we are based now – in Inverness – isn’t an issue.

But imagine if Scotland was a separate country.

I’m bidding for a project in Nottingham that will keep 2 of my team busy for a year.

Were good on price and quality, but were up against a competitor from Manchester.

Think about a post YES vote England which has lost its share of oil revenues and is still arguing with us about how the national debt should be shared out.

Today I’d probably win that business.  After a YES vote I’m not so sure.

Multiply that by thousands of small businesses like mine who trade all over the UK and what does that say for jobs.

What does that say for your chances of finding a job or an apprenticeship with a local firm.

It’s hard enough now.

How on earth will independence help?

Nationalism in Scotland attempts to provide a simple morality tale of decent, progressive Scots held back by whoever is their chosen ‘other’ of the day… London, austerity loving Tories, Scottish Labour.

The fact is that the citizens of the rest of the UK are not all ‘austerity loving Tories’, but are friends, family and work colleagues.

In Scotland today, the difference between pay and prices matters much more than any differences of outlook between Scotland and England.

In Scotland today, the real questions is will our children and grandchildren have a good school to go to, have opportunities to make the best of who they are for themselves and for others.

In Scotland today, detesting the Coalition’s approach to welfare reform which punishes those in poverty and blames them for the national debt is something my party and the SNP will agree on.

But it has nothing to do with independence.

I am a proud Scot. I am ambitious for Scotland's people and Scotland's possibilities.

My case is not that Scotland could not survive as a separate country – it is that there's a better choice for our future.

The best choice for our future is to remain a strong and proud country while benefiting from the economic strength, security and opportunity we can take advantage of as part of a bigger United Kingdom

The best choice for our future is to build a strong Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom which gives us the best of both worlds: real decision making power here in Scotland, solidarity with our friends in the rest of the UK. 

Doing thing differently where it works for us in Scotland, but staying connected with communities across the UK with common interests and values.

Scotland can be one of the best small countries in the world to live and work in. 

A free and equal country, where everyone enjoys the benefits of those values.

I don’t think we need independence to achieve that.

We already have a Scottish Parliament with the power to do so much.

We need to win a resounding NO vote in 2014.

And then we need to use that power.

Read more...

Scottish Labour: beyond the Referendum

After a relatively quiet year in political terms in 2013 – no national elections, not many by-elections - we have three major political challenges over the next 3 years.

The Independence Referendum in September 2014, a UK General Election in May 2015 and the next Scottish Parliament elections in May 2016.

The big challenge, of course, is to win a resounding vote against separation this year.

The 2015 and 2016 elections will be very different if the YES campaign is successful.  It’s tempting to ignore them for now for that reason.  I’ll argue here that  its exactly by being clear about what Labour will set out to achieve if elected in 2015 and 216 that we give ourselves the best chance of a resounding NO vote in September.

To listen to the pundits and read the polls, you'd think it was a done deal.  The case against independence seems compelling.  Confusion about the pound, doubts about EU membership, risks to jobs and pensions.  And that’s just the headlines.

But I don’t think it’s that simple.

In fact, I think we risk the political equivalent of sleep-walking into independence.

Because there are 10s of thousands of people who I don’t think will vote with their heads on 18th September but with their hearts.  Who have heard all the arguments - probably even agree with them - but may still pause in the polling booth, pencil over the two boxes, and just wonder.... what if?

Because there are an awful lot of people out there who are fed up with how government works - or doesn’t work - for them.  People who are fed up with politics and politicians of all parties.  People who don’t even vote.  People who may be persuaded, just once, to vote for a change, regardless of the risks. 

That’s who the SNP will mobilise and spend their election money-chest to target this year.

People who will vote with their hearts. 

People who want a better, different, Scotland than is on offer from the main parties right now.

We need to win those hearts.

We need to win those hearts not just for one vote, but to vote Labour again in 2015 and 2016.

So what is the Independence Referendum really about?

The SNP seem to be making it about what form of government can best deliver what the people of Scotland need.   Their argument, simply put, is that an independent Scotland can run its own affairs in the best interests of Scots than a Westminster government with a different agenda.

And while we endure the baleful effects on living standards of a Tory/LibDem Coalition driving through its, free market, small government, anti public sector, benefits cutting agenda that’s a powerful argument.

We hear much talk from the YES Campaign about democracy, about delivering a government for Scotland that better reflects the will of the people of Scotland than now.

But it’s not a joined up UK that is holding Scotland back. 

It’s the SNP who want to put it all at risk by a leap of faith into the unknown.

Everything will be fine in an independent Scotland because the SNP will make it so.

Europe will fast-track our EU membership because it’s the will of the Scottish people.

The rest of the UK will agree to a sterling zone because it’s in THEIR interests, whilst Scotland competes for jobs and investments with an Irish-style low tax policy for big corporates.

The SNP know this.  But in pursuit of their own ideology they are ready to plunge Scotland into years of economic uncertainty. 

In pursuit of their own interest they will not take some of the actions they could take now to mitigate some of the worst effects of the Tory/LibDem coalition.

They talk about project fear and project hope. 

But it’s what they are proposing that risks plunging Scotland into a generation of fear, uncertainty and doubt.

But I don’t think it’s good enough just to challenge the SNP to be more honest.

We need to challenge the SNP, get them off their moral high-horse about democracy and start to explain why they are ready to take such huge risks with all our economic futures.  

As Labour politicians and activists we need to start getting angry with the SNP about the risks they are taking with the economic and social lives of most Scots.

The Better Together campaign of course has to spell out all that is wrong with the Yes campaign’s arguments.  But as a working arrangement of Labour, Tory, LibDem and Independent politicians and activists, it’s limited in its ability to really spell out positive alternatives.

I’ve shared Better Together platforms with Danny Alexander, but my view of a post-referendum Scotland and UK is very different from his and those of his “quad” colleagues.  

Contemplating another Tory/LibDem Coalition after 2015, it’s tempting to flirt with the idea of an independent Scotland.  How different would a Scottish Labour Party be then?  Or would we need a new party?  Independent Labour Party anyone?

But this baleful coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is only there because the Labour party ran out of ideas and popular support. Post Iraq, post the credit crunch, post the banking collapse.

We need a Vision for a post-referendum Labour Scotland

The Labour Party needs to talk a lot more about how things would be different after a NO vote in 2014.

What will our priorities be? What new policies will we promote, what will we actually do if elected into power in 2015 and 2016?

I’ve argued before about the need for a positive Labour vision for a post referendum Scotland.

What does that actually mean?

It should start with a clear statement of what we believe in as a Labour Party.

A fair, equal and socially just society.

A society where there are always decent jobs which pay a living wage for those that need or want to work.   A society which abhors the waste of young people not able to find work or proper training and wants a government determined to tackle it.

A socially just society where the right to a decent standard of living is recognised for all and provided for based on need rather than earning power.

A society which places a high value on its public services, freely available to all when they are needed and is prepared to fund excellence and not just a safety net.

A sustainable society, committed not just to sustainable energy but to maintaining and protecting diverse communities across the country, urban and rural.

A society which values the role of government in delivering economic and social benefits for us all, because the free market, left to itself will not do so.

Scottish Labour need to be talking much more about what kind of society and government it wants to deliver post the referendum and the elections of 2015 and 2016.

We need some big ideas and some new policies that give people a clear view of what a post-Referendum, Labour-governed Scotland could be like.  Big, ambitious ideas.

Here are some ideas from my list:

·        a commitment to a living wage for all public and private sector employees, backed up by changes to public sector procurement practices to ensure that any business bidding for a public sector contract will pay it

·        establishing a network of regional banks – maybe by breaking up RBS whilst we still own it – that can provide lending and services based on the needs of the local economy not global competition.  This works well in Germany.

·        requiring major private sector companies whose decisions impact the lives of thousands to appoint trade union representatives as non-execs on their Boards.  

·        bringing ScotRail under public control in the same way as East Coast, which is running well and generating income for the government (and opposing the sell-off of East Coast as well), then using that power to develop joined up public transport services – especially in rural areas – that reduce the dependency on cars    

·        extending Labour’s proposed control of gas and electricity prices to all fuels – including petrol and diesel at garages – using a public pricing indicator where private firms have to justify rises above this or why they are not reducing prices when it falls

·        not replacing Trident.  A policy which saves us a huge amount of money and gives us the moral high- ground to argue for a non-nuclear weapon world.

Some of these are policies the Scottish Parliament can already pursue if it wanted to.

Others will need co-operation, and argument, with a Labour Government at Westminster.

Creating jobs, building economic security, promoting equal opportunity and funding decent public services are what anyone in this country should expect from a left of centre government, whether run from Westminster or Holyrood.

There is a line in the Internationale which sums this up.

"Freedom is just privilege extended if not enjoyed by one and all". 

Scotland can be one of the best small countries in the world to live and work in. 

A free and equal country, where everyone enjoys the benefits of those values.

We already have a Scottish Parliament with the power to do so much.

We need to win a resounding NO vote in 2014.

And then we need to use that power.

Read more...

LibDems leaders follow the Tory line again on Syria.

I wrote to all the Highland Media this week, calling Danny Alexander to account for his support for the Government motion which would have taken us down to road to a full scale war in Syria.  Events since have shown how wise the House of Commons was to reject the motion, with the real prospect now of a negotiated outcome.  Here is the text of my letter.

Dear Sirs

Danny Alexander’s decision to actively support the government motion on Syria as described in the media this week (Inverness Courier, 3^rd September 2013), shows the full extent of his political transformation since first being elected by the voters of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey.

At the 2005 General Election, Mr Alexander owed much of his success in being elected to replace David Stewart, to a campaign based on the Liberal Democrat Party’s opposition to the war in Iraq.

Now Danny Alexander is “disappointed” that he - along with Clegg, Cameron and Osborne - could not persuade the House of Commons to start down the same road again in Syria. 

Readers of your paper will recall the vote in Parliament in March 2003 - opposed by every single Lib Dem MP - which gave approval to go to war in Iraq.  Many of the arguments made then by Tony Blair as are being made again now by David Cameron and echoed by Danny Alexander.  The UK entered into a disastrous and bloody war from which we have only recently emerged.  To this day, there is no clear benefit to the people of the country we were supposed to be trying to help with hundreds of thousands of people killed and injured in the resulting civil war.

In 2010, when I stood against him as the Labour candidate, I was constantly attacked as representing the party which had taken the UK into an illegal war in the middle-east.  This despite my well known public opposition to the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, alongside my then MP, Gavin Strang.

The Government motion defeated at Westminster last week risked embroiling the UK in a complex middle-east conflict in support of an American-led action with no clear aims or out-comes and with dubious legal justification without clear United Nations backing.

How Danny Alexander can justify his support for the Government now, when he opposed just such a decision ten year ago and at both elections since is beyond me.   

Labour’s amendment recognised the atrocity of the use of chemical weapons but would have put in place a process which ensured backing for any action under international law.  The Government chose not to support this and press on with its case for immediate action.  Labour was right to vote against the Coalition motion when the amendment was rejected and I am proud of my party and its principled leader for doing so.

Read more...

LIbDem Sell-off of Royal Mail will damage Highland Communities

Come the 2015 elections, the Highlands will remember it was a LibDem minister who sold off the Royal Mail. 

The Highlands already suffer from poor quality broadband compared to many other parts of the country.  Despite the Coalition’s promises, the programme to deliver high speed broadband to rural communities – a programme reliant on a privatised BT – is well behind schedule.

Now the LibDems will put at threat a basic service that’s served us well for generations.

We are assured that a privatised Royal Mail will be obliged to honour the universal delivery obligation to deliver mail to any household in the UK.  There are no such guarantees about the timeliness and cost of such deliveries.  We have already seen how the privatised energy and train companies can raise tariffs and fares pretty much as they like, maximising profits instead of service standards.  

How long will it be before a privatised Royal Mail cuts the frequency or range of delivery in rural areas?  Pick up your mail from the “local” service point anyone?  And only on Tuesdays and Fridays, of course……..

Despite all the fine words about “freeing up management to seek sources of private capital to invest” this is a policy driven by right wing, free market, political ideology.  To make the sale attractive to its friends in the City, the Coalition has taken on the Royal Mail’s £200m pension debt, clearing the decks for big business to squeeze more cash out of an already profitable operation.  

Nationalise the debt, privatise the profit.

The Highland LibDem MPs had no mandate to support a wholesale privatisation of Royal Mail in their 2010 manifesto.  But it’s a LibDem minister, Vince Cable, who is driving through this legislation, with the enthusiastic support of Inverness MP Danny Alexander at the Treasury.

We can of course look forward to seeing CWU and other trade union members who stand up against this sell-off to protect their jobs and our mail services being lambasted by the media as “left wing luddites”.   They deserve pubic support and I, for one, will be proud to stand alongside them.

Read more...

Better Together Inverness Launch

I was proud to represent Labour at today's very well attended launch of the Better Together campaign in Inverness, speaking alongside Mary Scanlon MSP and Danny Alexander MP.  Here is the text of my speech.

Good afternoon.


Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you on behalf of Better Together

You will probably be expecting a well-rehearsed list of scare stories about independence.

Fears about access to NHS specialists, giving up the Pound, Bank of England control, can we afford our pensions?

What happens when the oil runs out?

As even John Swinney is now asking in private.

Well I'm not going to do any of that.

I want to talk about my vision for Scotland and why I think we really will be Better Together.

I’d like to start by taking Nicola Sturgeon’s advice.

In her speech in December last year, the Deputy First Minister said this:

“I ask you, as you make up your minds over these next two years, to base your decision not on how Scottish or British you feel, but on what kind of country you want Scotland to be and how best you think that can be achieved.”

Well I believe the kind of country I want Scotland to be is best delivered by progressive politics based on fairness, equal opportunity and social justice.

A Scotland with its own distinct political and economic identity but part of a socially progressive United Kingdom which shares those values.

Because we should not confuse the arguments of nationalism with those for advancing social justice.

The great advances that were struggled for and secured by working people across the UK – the Welfare State, Trades Union Rights, Equal Pay, a National Minimum Wage - were secured by the votes of working people in Cardiff, Liverpool and Newcastle, just as surely as people in Dundee, Inverness or Glasgow.

Better together means social justice is not just an ideal for Scotland but is a statement of solidarity with communities & working people across the UK.

Because socialism doesn’t stop at a border.

We need to work together to create the UK society we want or we will be the poorer for it.

Lets take the example of benefits.

The SNP prefer to blame anyone …. everyone…. rather than use the powers they already have in case it undermines the case for independence

Let’s take the Bedroom Tax as an example.

This isn't the time to talk about its fairness or otherwise

… there will be plenty of time for that between now and 2015

But the SNP have publicly stated their opposition.

They have postured with commitments to no evictions, even though they must know how difficult that is for councils and housing associations to deliver.

The wring their hands, denying their ability to do anything about it until we have independence.

Whilst they have the power NOW to help councils deal with the worst effects if they chose to do so.

But it doesnt suit their case.

So Scots can suffer until we vote the right way.

Some things work better together.

Working people need a pension system that is secure and sustainable. That will ensure a basic standard of living when you retire that won’t depend on the vagaries of the markets.

The UK system won’t make anyone rich, but it will deliver and will stand the test of time.

It works because of the scale of a UK-wide fund paid into by millions of UK workers and backed up by a government which is not dependant on highly variable oil revenues to keep pensions at a decent level.

I think that’s worth keeping.

I run a small business. My company sells its services in Scotland, and all over rhe UK.

Times are tough at home and turbulent internationally.

Businesses want certainty and stability – that’s what the current constitutional settlement allows.

The rest of the UK is Scotland’s largest export market.

We don't need the uncertainty, instability, and barriers to businesses that separation risks creating.

In these tough and turbulent times, the size, stability and opportunity of the UK economy is a huge advantage for Scotland's businesses.

We should be using that strength to invest in jobs, houses and infrastructure to grow ourselves back into economic health.

I am a proud Scot. I am ambitious for Scotland's people and Scotland's possibilities.

My case is not that Scotland could not survive as a separate country – it is that there's a better choice for our future.

A strong Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom gives us the best of both worlds: real decision making power here in Scotland, as well as a key role in a strong and secure UK.

Scotland can prosper as a social, economic and politically devolved country…..

.. making its own choices about what works for us…

…… but able to flex its economic power as part of a joined up UK which shares the same core values.

That’s why we are Better Together.

Thank you.

Read more...

Resolution to #Scotlab13

The Contemporary Resolution submitted by Skye Lochaber and Badenoch CLP has been accepted  by the Conference Arrangements Commitee and will be debated as part of a composite at Conference in Eden Court this afternoon.   John Erskine has been asked to move it.  

This conference believes that the Bedroom Tax is morally wrong, socially unfair and makes no economic sense.


100,000 tenants in Scotland will be hit by the bedroom tax, 40,000 face rent arrears and thousands could be made homeless. It asks the disabled, single parents, carers, the terminally ill and parents with more than one foster child to pay the price for the mistakes of the banking system, whilst millionaires work out how to spend their tax cut.

Figures released in March revealed that 27% of children in Inverness Central are living in poverty. This figure is already a disgrace and the introduction of the welfare reform bill and its Bedroom tax will only see this figure increase. Across the Highlands an estimated £1.5m will be cut from local incomes. Labour supports sensible welfare reform but the bedroom tax is economic madness. In the Highland Council area, there are just 340 single bedroom homes in social ownership, whilst some 3,400 households will be expected to find smaller houses or pay more in rent. All the Bedroom Tax will achieve is making some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society even poorer. The inevitable rent arrears will lead to more pressure on local authority budgets, not less.

In response to this savage and unfair cut to the incomes of so many working people, this conference resolves that the Scottish Labour Party should:

• call on the Scottish government to use its devolved powers to fund the shortfall in housing benefit and rental incomes that will arise from this misplaced policy

• work with Councils and Housing Associations across Scotland to ensure that Scottish tenants are not forced into debt and arrears by this unfair policy

• work with the UK Party to ensure that our manifesto for 2015 proposes a fair benefit system that protects the vulnerable in our society and includes a commitment to repeal the Bedroom Tax legislation

• commit that the 2016 Scottish Labour manifesto will reiterate the Party’s commitment to social justice and will use all devolved powers to create a fairer society that puts the needs of our most vulnerable people to the fore.

Conference notes that the Liberal Democrats are complicit in supporting this awful policy. The SNP wring their hands but will not use their existing powers at Holyrood to make a difference for Scottish people. Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, holds the purse strings and is one of the chief architects. The voters of Inverness and the Highlands won’t forget who helped implement these cuts. Without the Liberal Democrats, none of these welfare reforms could happen.

The Scottish Labour Party needs to make clear whose side it is on.

Read more...