Chief Constable's resignation is an opportunity to look afresh at Police Scotland

The resignation of Sir Stephen House in itself isn’t a solution to the problems facing Police Scotland.

The Chief Constable of Police Scotland has decided to leave his post in December, some nine months earlier than planned. This follows a number of high profile incidents in which the force has been criticised including; the three-day delay in responding to the M9 crash, routine arming of officers, stop and search policies and alleged spying on journalists.

UNISON Scotland’s response to Stephen House’s resignation was to wish him well in the future. While we sometimes disagreed, he was a decent chief constable who engaged fully with staff trade unions. We should also recognise that there have been positive innovations at police Scotland that don't attract media attention.

My own view is that he was a traditional chief constable, both at Strathclyde and then Police Scotland, firmly in the command and control school of leadership. Senior police officers brought up in this traditional leadership model often find it difficult to adapt to the more collaborative style of leadership that is largely the norm elsewhere in the public sector. Heroic leaders quickly find that to achieve anything in public service you have to work with other agencies, and that requires strong collaborative skills.

Command and control is also a problem when you have a police force the size of Police Scotland. Unlike some of the smaller forces it replaced, it is hugely challenging for any leader to be connected to what is going on at the sharp end. Scotland isn't a homogenous community and therefore they're will always been a conflict between the apparent efficiencies of centralisation, consistency of approach and local needs.

He was also in the traditional school of policing when it came to UNISON’s key issue, police civilianisation. I can recall us both giving evidence to the Justice Committee when he was still the Strathclyde CC, when he almost went as far as saying he would prefer all police staff to be constables. In fairness, at Police Scotland, when the consequences of the daft 1,000 extra officers policy became apparent, he became less dogmatic on this point. The best police leaders in the UK understand that a balanced staffing policy is the best approach, not just on grounds of cost, but also to ensure the force has the right mix of specialist skills.

The opportunity to correct this policy was when Police Scotland was created. However, the then Justice Secretary failed to grasp the opportunity. That was a political failure and not the responsibility of Stephen House. He was lumbered with an unworkable staffing policy in the context of having to make £1.1bn of cuts.

The primary problems facing any Chief Constable of Police Scotland are structural and political. The sheer size of the force means that it’s a cumbersome beast; prone to one size fits all solutions. While it probably isn’t practical to dismantle Police Scotland, it should be possible to design a model that devolves much greater control to communities.

The structure of Police Scotland scrutinised by the Scottish Police Authority was always going to be difficult, as we warned at the outset. We should scrap the SPA and create a national joint police board. If the funding is also routed through local authorities, we could recover the £26m of VAT that now goes to the Treasury.

The political problems are well illustrated by some of the recent operational incidents, which happened a long way from the control of the chief constable. However, a national force brings with it national scrutiny, both political and media. The structure also gives the Justice Secretary a much greater opportunity to dabble. The current Justice secretary has a different approach to his predecessor, but the political reality is that he also becomes accountable for every operational failure. The ‘not me guv’ response has its limitations.

Stephen House’s early departure, along with the SPA Chair, may not address most of the problems facing Police Scotland. However, it is an opportunity to take a long hard look at Police Scotland and make some sensible changes that will mitigate at least some of the consequences of national policing.

Trade Union Bill and Scotland

The Trade Union Bill is an unwarranted interference in devolved public services and will wreck the modern approach to industrial relations in Scotland.

Today's STUC conference was a first opportunity for the movement in Scotland to give detailed consideration to the UK government's latest attack on employment rights. The Bill, through minimum ballot thresholds and restrictive procedures, seriously curtails the possibility of legitimate strike action and even protest. It also attacks the ability of unions to represent their members (via facility time) and raise subscriptions (through employer check-off/DOCAS) from members. Unions are also to be burdened with more 'Red Tape' and be charged for it, from a government that claims to want to reduce regulation! There is a useful TUC Briefing and activist pack that sets out the provisions.

The conference started with a session on the Bill's provisions and followed on with sessions on organising approaches, industrial relations and legal issues. I contributed in the panel session and covered Scottish legal issues, our approach to industrial relations and campaigning.

At this early stage of the legislative process (Bill has only had its First Reading) we should start by examining the scope for a different political/legal approach in Scotland. It is difficult to get this legislation into Holyrood because employment law is reserved. There is a specific reservation in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, 'Employment rights and duties and industrial relations'. The Bill largely amends TULRCA 1992 which is included in the list of legislation covered.

Unsurprisingly, the UK Government's delegated powers memorandum says the Bill is reserved and therefore no Legislative Consent Motion (LCM) is required. There is no consideration of the interplay with very different Scots contract and criminal law. In my view that is challengeable and we should seek to persuade the Scottish Government and Parliament to claim that there should be an LCM. This would create an opportunity for different approach in Scotland.

Some aspects of the Bill such as strike ballots, Certification Officer etc are all clearly reserved. However, the provisions on facility time and DOCAS are more about public administration which is devolved. This is reinforced by the policy justification which focuses on public spending and the fact that these provisions only apply to the public sector.

There is also scope for challenges under the Human Rights Act. The ECJ has given member states a wide 'margin of appreciation' given the different industrial relations systems in Europe. However, some of the proposals are so extreme that they may not be regarded as 'proportionate', the key ECHR test. In addition, the Scottish Government and public bodies have human rights obligations which justify them resisting this legislation.

We also need to consider the Bill in the context of Scottish industrial relations. As the recent 'Working Together' review showed, there is a distinctly different industrial relations culture in Scotland and this is being taken forward in the Fair Work Convention. This is particularly the case in the public sector - the target of this UK legislation.

We know from polling that Scottish public opinion is more strongly against many of the Bill's provisions and that is reflected in political positions, with all but one MP in Scotland opposing the Bill. The idea that a UK Government can direct the detail of industrial relations in a Scottish council, health board etc is simply wrong post-devolution.

It's not just trade unions who can see the damage the Bill will do to industrial relations. It could result in more small disputes, wildcat strikes, other forms of protest. As ballots will only have a four month life span, this may result in more intensive disputes that will be all the more difficult to resolve.

The Bill also strengthens the case for devolving employment law. We argued this case before this Bill and we do so because of the different approach in Scotland, not just because don't like the current UK Government.

Finally, we must take our arguments against the Bill to our members and the wider public. The UK Government's case isn't even consistent. For example, DOCAS is used for many purposes, some encouraged by government such a payroll giving, credit unions, sports clubs etc.

We should build support on the threat to wider employment practice as well as the Bill's provisions. This is because the Trade Union Bill is aimed at weakening workers ability to resist bad employers.

The New York Times report on Amazon has sparked a lot of interest on poor employment practice The Herald followed it up with a story of one Fife worker's experience at Amazon. Will Hutton in Sunday's Observer analysed the role of corporations concluding, 'once firms cherished their employees, now they are disposable'. Or as Ian Bell in The Herald put it, 'A vanishingly small minority is waging a war for control over the majority'.

Issues like widening corporate pay, work intensification, insecure work and low pay are increasingly becoming understood by a wide range of employees, not just lowest paid. In many ways the shock over the Amazon story was that it all happened to white collar staff in a HQ setting.

This isn't just bad for workers, it's bad for the economy. The Tory party is in hock to the hedge funds and corporations that promote a failed economic model. As Will Hutton points out, growth, productivity and investment has crashed during the twenty years of this corporate dominance. Professor Keith Ewing today aptly described this as a 'global virus'.

There will be a lot of discussion in the coming months on how the trade union movement should respond to the Bill. A number of campaign events have already been organised. Legal arguments can inform political argument, while recognising it's not the full answer. Imaginative action on a number of levels will be required. A starting point is to examine the legal and political options, emphasise the different Scottish industrial relations culture, and campaign on our arguments including the wider context about world of work.

In simple terms this Bill is about destroying trade unions at the behest of the UK government's corporate funders. The Tories are saying you shouldn't belong to a union and if you do we will make it virtually impossible for you to take collective and political action to defend your job, pay and conditions. The public sector is being targeted because unions campaign against their planned destruction of public services, but they will come for the private and voluntary sector next. It's time for us to mobilise the majority to wrest control back from the minority.

 

 

Jeremy Corbyn's campaign helps, but Scottish Labour's solutions have to be home grown

Congratulations to Kez Dugdale and Alex Rowley on winning the Scottish Labour leadership elections. The challenges haven’t gone away, but this is the right leadership team to start rebuilding Scottish Labour.

The Scottish Labour leadership elections drifted to a conclusion, somewhat under the radar as Corbynmania dominates the political scene. There were no huge ideological differences between the candidates. When even Jim Murphy recognised that Scottish Labour can only win from the left, the scope for a different strategy is limited! Instead members recognised that Kez carried less political baggage and offered a fresh approach. She may be light on political ideology, but she isn’t just a political spin machine either. She has demonstrated that opposition matters, by forcing important issues onto the political agenda that the Scottish Government would rather have buried. Most importantly, I think she will be more of a team leader, building a consensus, rather than relying on a presidential approach

The deputy election was somewhat more ideological with Alex Rowley making an explicitly left pitch, coming out from the shadows of Gordon Brown, where the media still likes to place him. Alex is a thoughtful politician who has shown in debate and his written contributions that he has thought through different approaches.

Of course the hard work starts now. Kez’s election pitch shows that she gets the need to show what Scottish Labour stands for, as I argued in June. This means going big and bold in vision and policy terms, stretching the SNP on the left, without tribalism and knee jerk opposition. There are also some big and difficult organisational issues to be addressed. Local government is the tricky one, as well as the degree of autonomy Scottish Labour wants within the UK Labour Party.

The support Jeremy Corbyn is attracting, in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK, actually helps with this agenda. In policy terms, it creates a degree of space to develop a policy position that works for Scottish Labour without as many tensions with the UK party. Organisationally, Jeremy doesn’t appear to have thought through Scottish Labour, but neither have his opponents. As he demonstrated during the referendum, he takes the position that it’s up to the Scottish Labour to decide these matters – and that’s fine.

The real gain from the Corbyn campaign is the enthusiasm and hope it has generated. From the outset his opponents have looked tired and cautious, saying very little and not even saying that well. Their focus has become the mechanisms of the election – who can beat Jeremy – rather than making the positive pitch members are looking for. All the big beasts have been wheeled out to tell us that this will be a repeat of 1982 and Labour effectively has to accept the right wing media narrative.

In contrast Jeremy talks about trying to change the conversation on issues such as welfare. As he said; “If all that your average voter hears is politicians saying they’re going to be tough on welfare, newspapers calling everyone who legitimately claims benefits a scrounger and programmes like Benefits Street demonising those that claim benefits, is it surprising that that is then reflected in polls?”

Changing the conversation is pretty difficult, but it’s a message that is winning support because simply tacking ever rightwards is unlikely to generate much enthusiasm in a left of centre political party. If we are not about changing society, what is the point of the Labour Party?

That still leaves the constitutional issue. Craig McAngus at the LSE blog shows that that at least half of those who are most left-wing in Scotland are disappointed by the outcome of the referendum. Ideology alone won’t win back these voters, Scottish Labour also has to have an answer on the constitution.

Jeremy was the first of the UK leadership candidates to understand the damage the Better Together campaign did to Scottish Labour. His interview in the Herald today also shows that he understands that support for the union and unionism is not the same thing. The union is only credible if it has a positive political purpose, for socialists it is not an end in itself.

So, Scottish Labour should embrace the energy Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign has generated, and the space it could help create.  However, the solutions to the challenges facing the new leadership team will have to be found here in Scotland.

Future Energy Scenarios

Planning the UK's energy future is a difficult task and getting more challenging. A secure, sustainable and affordable energy supply should be a priority for any government.

National Grid has today published their Future Energy Scenarios 2015 and I was at the launch event. They have developed four scenarios that reflect different political, economic, social, technological and environmental factors:

• Gone Green is a world where green ambition is not restrained by financial limitations. New technologies are introduced and embraced by society, enabling all carbon and renewable targets to be met on time.
  
• Slow Progression is a world where slower economic growth restricts market conditions. Money that is available is spent focusing on low cost long-term solutions to achieve decarbonisation, albeit it later than the target dates.
  
• No Progression is a world focused on achieving security of supply at the lowest possible cost. With low economic growth, traditional sources of gas and electricity dominate and there is limited innovation changing how we use energy.
  
• Consumer Power is a world of relative wealth, fast paced research and development and spending. Innovation is focused on meeting the needs of consumers, who focus on improving their quality of life.
  

Probably the most important theme to come out of these scenarios is that Gone Green is the only scenario to achieve all renewable and carbon targets on time. It is also probably the most challenging scenario. Under this scenario, LED lights will be the only viable light bulb option by 2030, renewable power output will be comparable to that of conventional power plants by 2026, and sales of air source heat pumps will top 300k by 2030. Maybe, but you might be a touch sceptical.

In all the scenarios National Grid believe that there will be sufficient gas supplies, although the sources remain uncertain. This big issue is of course shale gas. If large scale planning permissions are not forthcoming, it will be replaced by imported gas.

Electricity margins will continue to be very tight over the next few years until new capacity kicks in from 2018/19. National Grid believe they have that covered with their additional balancing reserve. That will be provided by Peterhead in Scotland. Interconnectors are of growing importance and Great Britain remains a net importer of electricity in three of their four scenarios.

Finally, the grid faces significant operational challenges coping with intermittent wind and solar power rather than conventional power stations.

The presentations were helpful in explaining the scenarios, but the panel discussion was a bit bland. It needed some more challenging panel members and questions.

While there is a cross party consensus on targets, the debate is how to reach them. The recent announcement of onshore wind subsidy creates the very uncertainty that investors hate. Scenarios are all well and good, but someone has to deliver the capacity.

While government still talks about all the objectives, it seems clear that they are prioritising affordability over decarbonisation. There may also be too much focus on supply side, when we should put more effort into reducing demand.

The operational challenges of distributed generation are unlikely to be resolved until we get viable electricity storage options. This is effectively turning the usual supply and demand model on its head and could lead to attempts to persuade energy users to use energy when it's available. Anyone for windy or sunny day tariffs?

I allow myself a wry smile at events like this when civil servants are quizzed about what is in effect state planning of energy, introduced by a Tory government. This was supposed to be a temporary process, but no one is predicting it's imminent demise. In fact governments across the world are getting more involved in energy planning. It's simply to important to leave to the market.

What about Scotland in all this scenario planning. I'm afraid it barely gets a mention in the 200+ page book and the assumption is that imports from England and further afield will plug the gaps in our generating capacity. And gaps there will be when the wind isn't blowing.

If you want to understand the risks and challenges of our rapidly changing energy system, this is the book for you. But like me, you may conclude that it would be simpler and cheaper to return it all to public ownership.

 

Finding a future for wind power

As the political storm over the UK government's decision to end subsidies for onshore wind power rumbles on, we take a look at wind power developments in Scotland.

Renewables now generate almost half of Scotland's energy with wind power at record levels, according to the latest data. Wind turbines produced 4,452 gigawatt-hours of electricity in the first three months of this year, up 4.3% on the previous most productive quarter. This is enough to power Scotland’s 960,000 households for a year. Renewable sources provided 49.8% of electricity used in Scotland in 2014, with installed capacity rising by 9%, or 7,383 megawatts.

The cost of wind power has come under attack from economist Tony Mackay, who has claimed that the subsidies paid to onshore wind farms in Scotland are "unnecessarily high" and have led to "supernormal" profits for businesses and landowners. He argues that the subsidies received by wind farms has on average been, "between 2.5 and 3 times what was required to expand wind farm capacity to meet Scottish Government [emissions] targets".

The explanation for these profits are that while other countries subsidise capital investment, in the UK operating costs and revenue are subsidised. As a consequence electricity bills in Scotland are now around 10% higher than they would be without subsidies. Even with the replacement of the overly generous Renewables Obligations (RO) subsidy scheme with the more limited and competitive Contracts for Difference (CfD) subsidies, the UK will still be "stuck with the current shambles of subsidies for wind energy projects,". Scottish Renewables responded that subsidies add around 82 pence a week (or 7%) to the average Scottish bill.

Andrew Smith argues that wind power in the UK is more expensive than it should be because of regulatory and planning uncertainty. That adds to developers costs and means that much of the supply chain is outwith the UK. Despite this the latest round of CfD bids shows that it costs about the same as solar.

He argues that government policy could give windfarm developers much greater long-term assurances of a supportive and consistent policy environment, thus lowering their risks and hence lowering costs. This will improve transparency, and reduce the cost of onshore wind further. It would give certainty to investors through decisiveness and leadership, and it would show that the government is taking a pragmatic and cost-effective approach to tackling climate change.

Frederick Dahlmann from Warwick University argues that the future for wind power is locally based wind farm cooperatives using crowd funding. He points to the experience of Denmark and Germany where local authorities are much more engaged in the process. He illustrates his point with a proposal by Yorkshire-based Edgehill, which seeks to raise £2.5m from investors chipping in as little as £50 to build ten turbines in ten different rural locations. With their risks and benefits shared between large numbers of individual investors, these projects are used to keeping locals happy, dealing with NIMBYs, and bringing them on as investors.

A new report by the climate change body ClimateXChange claims that developers sometimes under-assess the impact of wind farm noise and appearance on residents living nearby. The study looked at how the visual, shadow flicker and noise impacts predicted by developers at the planning stage compared to reality. It concluded that in some cases what was set out in planning applications did not match the actual impact. It also found that efforts to engage with the public had not always adequately prepared residents for the visual, shadow flicker and noise impacts of a development.

There might have been wider public support against the UK government's decision to end subsidy early if wind power had delivered the hoped for wider benefits. As Brian Wilson puts it:

"I find it bitterly disappointing that so little of the manufacturing associated with wind farms in Scotland has been carried out here. That is a major failure on the part of the Scottish Government and does no credit to the biggest developers, Scottish Power and SSE, who have had the benefits of major planning consents and vast subsidies through the Renewables Obligation but failed to reciprocate by creating an industry worthy of the name."

Brian also suggests some practical measures to mitigate the impact of the decision. Specifically support for community based schemes and the islands. As I previously argued, the UK government decision was right in principle, but wrong in terms of timing. There should be room to rescue a viable future for wind power as part of a more balanced energy policy.

 

The budget headline is wages, but dig a little deeper....

The Chancellor's summer UK budget today was long on spin, but the substance was less impressive once you delve into the detail.

The headlines are about wages with the introduction of a new national 'living wage' for all workers aged over 25, starting at £7.20 an hour from April 2016 and set to reach £9 by 2020. In effect this is an increase in the national minimum wage for the over 25’s, not a living wage at all. As the Living Wage Foundation has already pointed out, it is calculated on what the market can bear, not on what workers need to live on. An annex to the OBR report covers the economic impact and interestingly claims there will be a minimal impact on jobs. The wages pill has been sweetened for employers with cuts to Corporation Tax and employer National Insurance contributions for small employers.

While this will help low paid workers outwith the public sector, it has been set below the level of the Scottish Living Wage that applies to most UNISON members in Scotland. If the Scottish Government follows the Chancellor’s lead, as they generally do, public sector workers face four more years of pay restraint with increases capped at 1% per year.

It could be even worse, particularly for young members and low paid members with families. The freeze in working age benefits hit families hardest and young people also lose Housing Benefit until they reach 21. They don’t get the new living wage either. One of the real benefits of the English approach to supporting disadvantaged students at university was maintenance grants. They have been abolished and replaced by loans. The Tories really do have it in for young people - no wonder they oppose extending the vote to 16 year olds!

The increase in income tax personal allowances are a help, but they are a regressive tax cut that benefit higher paid workers more as this IFS chart based on previous plans shows.

The Resolution Foundation has also provided a helpful explanation of why wages alone don't work. The rich also gain from changes to inheritance tax that will cost the Treasury almost £1bn. Tax relief for £1m home owners won't help many in Scotland and will simply entrench intergenerational inequality and increase house prices. It will do nothing for house building. The OBR estimates that the budget changes will cut affordable housing by 40,000. This table from the OBR report shows the extent of upper middle class welfare in this budget.

The measures to tackle tax avoidance are welcome, even if pinched from Labour's manifesto. However, the OBR rates the estimates of income raised as 'very high' uncertainty. They will also have to deliver on the extra HMRC staff, after years of cuts. There is some confusion here between the Chancellor's claimed £750m for HMRC and the Red Book's £250m. The Non-Doms are also being phased out very slowly, giving ample time for the Chancellor's pals to find new ways of dodging tax.

The OBR also estimate that the economic recovery will slow slightly and still depends on an significant increase in household debt. I always find this a scary chart as we all recall what happened last time personal debt increased in this way.

After wages we need to look closely at the impact a UK budget has on Scottish public spending. Cuts in departmental spending (RDEL) will follow a much smoother path than was implied in March, moving away from the previous ‘rollercoaster’ pattern. Real terms RDEL cuts now range from 0.5 to 2.4% a year between 2015-16 and 2019-20. In March, the real cuts in 2016-17 and 2017-18 were 5.8 and 5.4% respectively – larger than any seen in the previous Parliament. RDEL spending is now assumed to fall by an average of 1.5% a year in real terms over this Parliament, compared to the 1.6% over the previous Parliament. Essentially the cut is similar, but spread more evenly over a longer period as this chart from the OBR report shows.

It is difficult to calculate the Barnett consequentials until we see the departmental allocations for devolved services in England. That will probably become clearer in the Autumn Statement. However, the limited good news is that the massive cuts planned for the next two years will be somewhat reduced from the March plans.

The impact on jobs is still significant. UK general government employment is estimated to fall by 0.4 million by the first quarter of 2020, leading to a total fall from early 2011 of 0.7 million. These figures are 0.2 million smaller than projected in March, but still equate to a 13% overall reduction in headcount. The Scottish job losses could be between 30,000 and 40,000 posts by 2020.

The OBR now publishes tax forecasts for the devolved administrations. They only cover the Calman provisions, not the more extensive powers being debated in the Scotland Bill at Westminster. This chart sets out their estimates.

For those interested in pension funds there will be considerable analysis of the tax changes. I also note that tucked away in the Red Book is a reference to pooled investment of local authority pension funds. Something we are at least considering in Scotland.

Overall, doing something about some wages is I suppose some progress from this Chancellor, even if it is only a partial plug for benefit cuts. Welfare cuts for the poor paying for tax cuts for the rich is a more predictable element of the budget along with spending cuts that aim to cut vital public services. I also suspect this is a budget that requires more analysis of the detail - with more horrors yet to be discovered.

 

 

Why the social security system is vital to low paid workers

As we await the assault on working people in the first Tory budget next week, new data points to better ways of supporting the low paid and reducing inequality.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has published its annual research on the The Minimum Income Standards (MIS), which asks members of the public what goods and services they think different types of households need to live to an adequate level. They turn this into a useful calculator that lets you compare your income to MIS.

The pause in inflation helped people on low incomes to become slightly better off relative to their needs in 2015, despite working-age benefits and tax credits rising by only 1 per cent. However, households on low incomes remain much further behind what they need than before the recession. The gap between family incomes and what the public think people need for an acceptable living standard has grown sharply.

The earnings required to achieve the MIS for a single person stayed stable at £17,100 a year. Earnings requirements fell for families with children, helped by a small increase in Child Benefit and tax credits. A working couple with two children must each earn £20,000 to reach MIS.

A predicted return of modest inflation combined with a planned freeze in benefits, tax credits and Universal Credit will create a less favourable environment for households reliant on help from the state. The July 2015 special Budget is likely to make matters much worse.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies(IFS) has published a short analysis of the annual DWP statistics on the distribution of household income.

After inflation, median (middle) income grew by just under 1% in 2013–14, following a similarly small rise in 2012–13. This represents a slow recovery in average incomes, which follows the sharp decline between 2009–10 and 2011–12 when workers’ real earnings fell rapidly. It did mean that real median income had crept back to within about 1% of its pre-recession (2007–08) level, though it was still almost 3% below its 2009–10 peak.

In 2013–14 incomes grew at a similar rate across almost all of the income distribution, resulting in little change in income inequality. At 0.34, the Gini in 2013–14 remains at around the same level as in the early 1990s, but lower than before the Great Recession. This is largely explained by the fact that while real earnings fell sharply between 2009–10 and 2011–12, benefit incomes were more stable. Since poorer households get a greater share of their income from benefits, their incomes have risen relative to higher-income households. However, once you take account of falling mortgage payments, overall inequality fell less than those numbers suggest since it is largely better off households who benefited from this reduced cost.

The latest data show little or no change in poverty rates, for the population as a whole and for the major demographic groups (pensioners, working-age adults and children). However, as IFS warns, we need to look at trends over several years.

We also need to look at how geographical is the wealth gap. The richest place in Scotland is a third better off than the poorest. ONS data shows that gross disposable income averages just over £20,000 a year in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire and in Edinburgh, compared to just under £15,000 a year in Glasgow and North Lanarkshire.

As we approach the special budget and the likely attack on social security for working people, the TUC and the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) have urged ministers to improve Universal Credit rather than raising the income tax threshold to £12,500. In a study of 13 options, the tax threshold proposal cost the most and came bottom for reducing child poverty. A package of improvements to Universal Credit including increasing work allowances, would reduce child poverty by 460,000.

Alison Garnham, chief executive of the CPAG, said: "This comprehensive analysis shows the Chancellor must be careful not to back the wrong horse when it comes to the Government's flagship policies. Rather than committing billions on the costly and poorly targeted policy of raising the personal tax allowance, the Treasury should stop starving universal credit of the investment it needs to fulfil its poverty-reducing potential and justify the massive upheaval surrounding it. The evidence is clear that investment in tax credits is incredibly effective in lifting children out of poverty."

While increasing wages remains hugely important, these reports highlight the importance of in work benefits to families in particular. Despite the 'strivers' rhetoric, these are likely to be the biggest losers next week.