Welfare dispute threatens to cloud the bigger picture

FOR all the positive, collaborative discussions and negotiations that took place at the cross-party Smith Commission on further devolution of powers to Scotland, there was always one weakness in the process which threatened to return the debate to adversarial political wrangling. The commission could produce a report and recommendations, but these would be at the mercy of interpretation.

After three days of debate on the Scotland Bill at Westminster, frustration is building among the opposition parties. All amendments have been rejected, and there is little evidence so far that the government has any appetite to take on board additional proposals. The government insist that the bill goes far enough, with employment minister Priti Patel stating that it meets both the substance and the spirit of the Smith Commission. It’s a moot point.

Yesterday, the battle ground was welfare, where the SNP backed a Labour amendment that would have seen Holyrood given the power to create new benefits and top up existing payments as a means of countering welfare cuts imposed by the UK government in other areas. Effectively, this would mean giving the Scottish Parliament the ability to design its own welfare system. The amendment was defeated, with Scottish Secretary David Mundell pointing to last year’s referendum result and stating that Scots opted to stay within the UK to continue benefiting from sharing risks and resources with other parts of the UK. If this turns out to be the hard, bottom line that will be applied to all debate over the Scotland Bill, this jars with Mr Mundell’s earlier calls for cross-party conciliation over devolved powers.

However, there are difficulties over devolving extensive welfare powers, not least over what this would mean for the rest of the UK and how changes to the welfare system – by then out-of-kilter north and south of the Border – could be successfully adopted in the future. A refusal to accept the amendment does not necessarily mean we are witnessing a blanket rejection of proposals.

The SNP’S MPS will regularly push for devolution of full powers and this should not be a criticism of them, even if it leads to disagreement and conflict. Transfer of powers is, after all, the party’s raison d’etre. Privately, some will acknowledge that further welfare powers were always going to be difficult to secure, or indeed implement.

It should not be forgotten that the Smith Commission stopped a long way short of transferring full welfare powers. Whether amendments are accepted or rejected, the bigger picture is that the bill is a significant step forward in tailoring the welfare system into a more relevant and appropriate means of meeting the specific needs of the country.