Food: Banks

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to help the poorest in our country. That is why, over the past two years, the Government have provided grants of around £2 billion to help freeze council tax; the fuel duty increase that was due to take effect on 1 January was cancelled and the increase planned for 1 April deferred until 1 September; and we have lifted the personal tax allowance and taken 2 million of the lowest-paid people out of tax altogether. It is, of course, why we have the Healthy Start and school fruit and vegetable schemes. It is also good news that on 23 January we learnt that employment is up by 90,000 and that the rate of job growth last year was the fastest since 1989.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the Minister said that the duty of the Government is indeed, as I am sure we would all agree, to help the poorest in the land. Following the Question of my noble friend Lord Dubs, how does the Minister reconcile that statement with the fact that, from April onwards, some of the poorest families in the land, including something like 1 million children, will lose £40 to £60 per week, over time, from their benefits? What estimate has the Minister made of how many of those families will need to go to food banks in order to survive until they get their payment at the end of the month?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, we are straying a little from food banks. The difficult economic situation is having an impact on everyone, including workers, who find their wages either being frozen or increasing only by small amounts. The Government have protected poor and vulnerable groups as far as possible while undertaking the urgent task of tackling the fiscal deficit. Work remains the best and most immediate way out of poverty, and we have continued to prioritise providing the best possible work incentives through welfare reform and increasing the personal allowance.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I absolutely understand what the noble Baroness’s Amendment 50 is trying to achieve. I assure your Lordships that we are equally committed to ensuring that this money is targeted on and reaches the most vulnerable people. We appreciate the importance of this money to vulnerable people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has just explained.

As noble Lords have said, ring-fencing was debated in Committee and the Government have thought carefully about the valuable points that were made. We share the desire of noble Lords to ensure that these funds are used in the way intended and are not lost in the general pool of local authority funding.

We have concluded that the most appropriate way to make clear to local authorities the purpose of the funding is by setting it out in a settlement letter from the Secretary of State that will accompany the funding that is sent to each local authority. This letter will set out clearly what the funding is to be used for and describe the outcome that must be achieved. It is important that local authorities are not constrained in how they achieve that outcome, so the letter will not prescribe the method that should be used.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Obviously this letter has not yet been sent; I presume that it has been drafted. Would the Minister be willing to circulate to Members of this House taking part in the debate the draft of the proposed settlement letter that he expects to send, so that we can be reassured? I am sure that his intentions are entirely beneficent in this regard, but it might assuage some of our concerns were we to see a letter in draft before it was sent out. If we had comments on it, we could then feed them back to him.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the letter is not yet in draft. If it is possible to do something along the lines that the noble Baroness asks, I will do it, but I hope she appreciates that I will make no commitment on that.

The letter will ensure that the money intended for vulnerable people goes to vulnerable people without curtailing the freedom of local authorities to tailor provision and, for example, pool funding, without imposing a one-size-fits-all approach that does not take account of the different needs faced by different areas. Furthermore, to underline its purpose, the funding will be distributed to local authorities through a specific revenue grant, rather than including it with the rest of their general expenditure in the main revenue support grant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend Lord Kirkwood asked about the structure of what is being transferred. The current Social Fund AME allocation of £178 million will fund the new local provision. It will be distributed based on spend at the point of transfer nationally between England, Scotland and Wales. In England, the funding will be devolved to upper-tier local authorities. Again this will be based on Social Fund expenditure. The AME funding splits £141 million to replace community care grants and £36 million for emergency provision. The first year of the new system will be 2013-14 and the funding will be the same as the amounts in 2012-13.

My noble friend asked about the Social Fund Commissioner. The Independent Review Service changed 20,886 decisions in 2010-11. The number of crisis loans, budgeting loans and community care grant decisions made was 5,595,000. The IRS makes decisions on cases that can go one way or another depending on the discretion of the decision-maker. All decisions on the discretionary Social Fund are also first subject to an internal review in Jobcentre Plus.

My noble friend asked about the possible substitution for cash and white goods and indicated that he thought it might not meet the needs. There will of course still be national provision of advances of benefit through the new payments-on-account scheme that will replace budgeting loans and crisis loans for alignment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked how the mixture of AME and DEL will be managed. All the money is AME. There will be, of course, additional admin funding on top to cover the cost of the new burdens.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Is the Minister therefore saying that if local authorities represent that there is increased need based on the criteria in the letter of guidance, the Government will respond with increased expenditure because AME, of course, means that it is demand led?

[Lord De Mauley]

I would not go that far.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I thought that the noble Lord would not. I do not think that we can say that it is AME, in that case, if it is not. The point about AME within DWP is that it responds to demand. If it is going to be a cash grant, it is not going to be demand; it will effectively be DEL.

[Lord De Mauley]

Historically it has been AME. The funding for the year 2012-13 will be the funding that is transferred in 2013-14. It will not increase by that amount. However, there are the budgeting loans to which I have referred as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised a question over benefits. Short-term advances will replace crisis loans for alignment as part of a national payments on account scheme. These advances of benefit will cover those in financial need as a result of waiting for an increase in benefit or for a benefit claim to be dealt with.

On the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, the policy is developed taking account of all relevant rights. We did not take specific legal advice.

I hope that what I have said will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord De Mauley

Monday 28th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord De Mauley]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions. In order to hasten things, may I write to her with answers to those questions?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Is it not the case that local authorities and the department very sensibly share information on the ATLAS project and therefore that this would follow from that?

[Lord De Mauley]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think I will include that in the written answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Could I therefore ask the Minister a question to which his noble friend responded on a previous amendment? If he is making a power to impose charges, would he at the very least agree that it would be unwise—as well as indecent, as some of us might think—to introduce them for at least two years or so, until the new system has settled down?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I take the general point that they should not come in immediately. We are in fact proposing to introduce the new service and run it for six months before we introduce charges.

The behaviour that my noble friend’s specific amendment would take into account on the part of the applicant is consistent with one objective of the application charge—pursuing alternatives to the statutory service before applying to it—so in that sense it is consistent with our thinking. I would argue, though, that there would be difficulties in collecting hard evidence to show that a parent with care had taken reasonable steps without an inappropriate degree of intrusiveness. However, the amendment does focus our attention on the fundamental issue of access to the statutory service for those who need it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I shall be brief. I have a question that we should have asked on the previous group of amendments. What moneys do the Government expect to collect as a result of the £100 fee?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, in answer to my noble friend’s question, given the admonishment of my noble friend Lord Freud in an earlier debate I can hardly utter the word “target”. I do not know where he got the figure of 28 days from—it is not familiar to me—but I will answer his question in more detail in writing.

Will the noble Baroness repeat her question?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I was going through the impact analysis statement on the changes in CMEC and I cannot find the figures anywhere. We should have asked this on the previous group—it is our fault—but can the Minister tell us how much the Government expect to garner by way of the £100 charge?

[Lord De Mauley]

Given what I said in the debate on charging, I would prefer to write to the noble Baroness about that in due course.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord De Mauley]

I do not have an answer for the noble Lord. He is right to raise this issue. Perhaps I may include that in the correspondence.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Minister is being very helpful on this but I want to go back to the point made by my noble friend. This stemmed originally from what the noble Lord, Lord Freud, corrected, which was a misapprehension in the press some time back that people would lose ESA et cetera while they appealed. This was presented as an issue of moral hazard: why would anyone ever not appeal if they knew that through the process of appeal they would get a benefit even if subsequently this was not confirmed?

The other side of that moral hazard issue is: how many people, and under what circumstances and what benefits, could lose their income even though ultimately it might be reinstated by an appeals tribunal and backdated? During the process, which could very well take six weeks, what do they live on? The noble Lord may be able to respond now but, if not, perhaps he can write to us about in what circumstances, with what benefits and with what clients there could be a situation in which someone could lose their benefit, even though they were appealing and might subsequently be reinstated? During that process they could be living basically on the kindness of strangers.

[Lord De Mauley]

I understand what the noble Baroness wants and I am grateful to her for allowing me to write.

Barnett Formula

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

I was going on to say that the House of Lords report recommended replacing the Barnett formula with a needs-based formula. I will deal later with needs-based issues. The previous Government welcomed the House of Lords report, as noble Lords said, although they remained opposed to replacing the Barnett formula. Following the Holtham and House of Lords reports, the coalition Government said in their programme for government that they recognised the concerns expressed about the system of devolved funding, but that the priority must be to reduce the budget deficit and therefore any decisions to change the current system must await the stabilisation of the public finances. In addition, the Government announced in the spending review that there will be consideration with the Welsh Government of the proposals in the final Holtham report, consistent with work being taken forward in Scotland following the Calman commission.

The Government welcome all views on the future of the Barnett formula. I will ensure that Her Majesty's Treasury is made aware of what has been said this evening. In the past, the formula proved to be a durable and robust method of calculating changes for the devolved Administrations. Even the House of Lords report concluded that the Barnett formula had qualities such as simplicity, stability and the absence of ring-fencing. However, we recognise the concerns that are often expressed about it, and were expressed this evening.

There is perhaps a perception, especially in English regions such as the north-east, that Scotland in particular is overprovided for. Comparisons tend to be made using figures published in public expenditure statistical analyses on identifiable total managed spending per head. My noble friend Lord Shipley mentioned some figures. Those for 2009-10 are £8,531 per head for England, £9,940 for Scotland, £9,709 for Wales and £10,564 for Northern Ireland. On a comparable basis, the north-east has the second highest spending per head in England at £9,433.

The perception in England that the devolved Administrations may be overfunded may be exacerbated because they can afford more generous policies; for example, on university fees and the free provision of services. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, referred to this. I must emphasise that the devolved Administrations have not received any additional money to fund those policies. They have accommodated them within their existing budgets. One of the purposes of devolution is to allow the devolved Administrations to make these different policy choices. This was set out in 1997 in the previous Government’s statement of principles:

“The key to these arrangements is block budgets which the devolved Administrations ... will be free to deploy ... in response to local priorities”.

I am sure that the devolved Administrations themselves do not regard their spending review settlements as generous.

My noble friend Lord German and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, were concerned about the Barnett squeeze convergence property of the Barnett formula, whereby the percentage increases in spending tend to be lower than in England. The Holtham commission in Wales, in particular, has called for a floor to be placed under the formula to prevent further convergence with England. The expression “Barnett squeeze” reflects that the Barnett formula provides the same absolute increase per head but a lower percentage increase because of the higher baseline levels of spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland inherited from the past. Of course, the percentage reductions will tend to be smaller than those for many UK departments when spending is cut, as it was in the last spending review. I will return to the subject of Wales in a moment.

Some have raised concerns about the transparency of the existing system. The House of Lords report itself concluded that the quality of data on public spending has improved since 1999. The Government have provided further information about the allocation of grant to the devolved Administrations, based on data which the Treasury provided to the committee and which was published in the committee’s report.

Several, if not all, noble Lords criticised the Barnett formula because it does not take sufficient account of needs. In a similar discussion in your Lordships' House in 2009, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said for the then Government,

“there is no doubt that the Barnett formula has stood the test of time from its development 20 or so years ago”.—[Official Report, 15/12/09; col. 1392.]

The Barnett formula has indeed provided a simple, stable and robust method for funding the devolved Administrations over the past 30 years. It is, of course, for the devolved Administrations to decide how to allocate their overall budget to individual programmes reflecting their own policies. The Barnett formula allows them the freedom to do this, without being second-guessed by the UK Government or any other body on their needs.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Nobody tonight has queried the propriety of a block grant that allows the devolved Administrations to determine how they allocate their expenditure within that block grant, nor was it raised during the debate that my noble friend Lord Davies answered. The criticism has been about the size of that block grant, which is based on out-of-date, inappropriate and deeply unfair estimates.

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords, but as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, highlighted, there are complications in reaching a consensus on a needs-based formula. I understand that in the 1970s a formal interdepartmental needs assessment was carried out by the Treasury in consultation with interested departments. It was published in 1979. The study was extensive, involved a number of experts and a large team of people and took two years to complete yet, despite a great deal of time-consuming work, it was unable to reach an agreed conclusion about the basis for a needs-based assessment, and therefore it was not implemented. Indeed, the Barnett formula was introduced at around that time. There is, of course, no consensus across the UK on how to measure needs at the country level and, as in the 1970s, it would inevitably be a contentious and very time-consuming exercise. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, explained some of the problems. A needs-based system would be highly sensitive to the chosen weightings and indicators, on which there is no generally accepted methodology or consensus. The perception of needs and the understanding of the relevant factors may vary over time. Additionally, as policies change, so may the relative cost of implementing them in different countries. The picture may be very different in, for example, 2015. A number of changes are being progressed, such as the Scotland Bill, discussions on the Holtham report, and Northern Ireland consultation on corporation tax. I am sorry to disappoint noble Lords but the Government’s position remains that the priority is to reduce the budget deficit and that any decision to change the current system must await the stabilisation of the public finances.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised the arguments in favour of fiscal autonomy. The union dates from 1707 and is one of the oldest and most successful in the world. It has a single currency, central bank, monetary policy and system of financial regulation, which fosters trade, monetary stability and economic growth. Non-devolved risks are pooled and financed centrally. Fiscal autonomy could mean further spending cuts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, assuming uniform levels of taxation. Also, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith cautioned, it would not be prudent to rely on volatile and uncertain future North Sea oil receipts. However, we believe that financial accountability can be improved in Scotland through greater devolution of taxation, as proposed by the Calman commission.

I spoke earlier about Scotland and I said that I would return to Wales. I know that some consider Wales to be underfunded, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, among others. In fact, spending per head in Wales is 12 per cent above England and, furthermore, spending has more than doubled in cash terms since devolution. Wales also benefits from very large EU structural fund spending, which amounted to £208 million in 2009-10 and is expected to rise to £233 million by 2014-15.

On Northern Ireland, the Government attach priority to improving the security situation, including by confirming the £800 million financial package which accompanied the devolution of policing and justice just before the general election last April. A further £200 million was announced earlier this year for policing in response to the security situation. In addition, the Government believe that it is important to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy from the public sector to the private sector. They published a consultation paper in March, which included examining possible mechanisms for varying corporation tax. No decisions have been made yet.

Some are concerned that insufficient attention is paid to the English regions. The Barnett formula is not used to allocate spending within England. The Government have chosen to prioritise the NHS, schools and early years, security and the capital investment that supports long-term economic growth for reasons of prosperity and fairness. This means tough settlements for some other areas but, because we have chosen to reform welfare, departmental budgets other than health and overseas aid will be cut by an average of 19 per cent over four years, which I emphasise is the same pace as planned by the previous Government.

There are also claims that the Treasury is judge and jury, and that the Barnett formula should be administered by an independent body. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth raised that. It is the Treasury’s core function to control public spending. But the statement of funding policy sets out the dispute resolution procedure under which, if all other avenues have been exhausted, disputes may be remitted to the joint ministerial committee.

The Government have no plans to change the Barnett formula at present but we will continue to keep all aspects of public spending under review. The Government listen to all views and I thank all noble Lords for contributing to the debate today.

Barnett Formula

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord De Mauley

Monday 7th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention. We recognise the force of the arguments and are carefully considering the various reports. There is as yet no consensus on exactly what a needs-based assessment would take account of. In the mean time, the coalition’s priority, as I have said, is to reduce the deficit.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, given that the Barnett formula funds on the basis of population and not need, does the Minister agree that it is profoundly unfair to overfund Scotland by the extent of some £4 billion to £5 billion a year, while requiring underfunded local authorities in the rest of the country to make further savage cuts as their contribution to reducing the deficit?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, in circumstances where the public sector debt is approaching £900 billion and the PBR forecast for 2009-10 is for net additional borrowings of £156 million, or about 11 per cent of GDP, I am surprised to hear that the noble Baroness thinks that the Barnett formula is a more urgent matter.