Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Lord Beamish and Helen Jones
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is correct and I will come on to some examples of what he says in a moment.
I received a parliamentary answer from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), which said that in 2010-11, the last year for which we have the figures, 743,660 non-passported council tax benefit recipients were in work. There were 2,860 such people in Stockport, which is the area that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) represents. That is more than 743,000 people who the Minister for Housing and Local Government does not think exist. They do not go to Tory fundraisers, I suppose, or attend the black and white ball. All the time, his implication has been that council tax benefit goes only to those not in work. The further implication, of course, is that they are deliberately not in work, which is what underlies most of what he says. Coming from a Government who preside over unemployment of 2.6 million, that is breathtaking arrogance.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the people who will be affected are the same group who will be affected by the crazy bedroom tax? If they have an unoccupied bedroom in their house they will lose housing benefit, which is another in-work benefit.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right. The same group of people is being hit again and again. Whatever the Government tell us, we are not all in it together.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Lord Beamish and Helen Jones(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Syms
I am certain that the measure will have a different effect on different authorities. We need a little bit more clarity from Ministers: will there be emergency funds that can be drawn on if there is a difficulty in the short term?
Of course, what makes it complicated is the fact that the Government are looking for savings because of the overall economic situation. We have to make savings; we are looking to make savings of £420 million, and that makes things much more difficult. Again, speaking from my experience of local government, it is sometimes in a position to deliver savings, given a chance, but as we have heard in this debate, if there is pressure on council tax and council tax benefits, something will have to give. I therefore have concerns about the Government’s direction of travel, and I hope that the Minister can reassure us that they have thought about what would happen in an emergency.
Clearly, if a local authority has to deal with a reduction and is given maximum flexibility to do so, sometimes it can deal with it, but if it is initially told, “You must protect pensioners,” the impact of the reductions may fall on a smaller number of people. We recently heard exchanges across the Chamber about universal credit; that credit may offset some of that, but that might mean that the non-working faced the worst situations. The issue needs careful thought. I am sure that the Government’s timetable can be kept to, but we have to think very carefully; if lots of new schemes are invented following consultation, some people will get them right, some will get them wrong, and some will over-egg the savings, and that may well have an impact on our communities.
The Library briefing says that the reduction might partly be an incentive for local authorities to create jobs, but I am not sure that local authorities can wave a magic wand and create jobs in six months, a year or two years. Over a period of time, if authorities have active economic development departments, build capacity on industrial estates and try to attract firms, they might be able to have some impact. However, from a practical point of view, when it comes to dealing with the problems that arise when the measures are implemented—and perhaps in the year or two after that, in what we all know will be quite difficult economic circumstances—I do not think that councils have the ability to change the number of people in or out of work in their area. That is a long-term thing, not a short-term change that can be made in months, so I have some concerns.
Poole borough council, my authority, is having to deal manfully with the need for a number of savings; dealing with the measure, on top of that, will be difficult. I hope that we get the scheme right in Poole, but if we do not, I hope that the Government have thought about how they will deal with the consequences.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to be under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. We have heard hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House express real concerns about how the scheme will work in practice, and particularly about what will happen in authorities with a large number of pensioners. Hon. Friends have spoken about the need to start the scheme on the right basis—a neutral basis—and to ensure that councils are adequately funded for the scheme that they are being asked to bring in.
I want to speak about new clause 11 in particular, which seeks to address some of the real financial risks that are being transferred to local authorities. Many hon. Members will remember that last week we debated clause 3, which changed the requirement to pay a grant to a power to do so. In that debate, as in all our debates so far on the Bill, the Government refused to clarify how they would distribute money, fund local authorities and meet the costs of the duties that they seek to impose on them. That is exactly what the Government are trying to do with the localisation of council tax benefit. We are back to the old game of ensuring that the blame for their cuts is taken elsewhere. New clause 11 attempts to ensure that local authorities are reimbursed for expenses incurred as part of the council tax reduction scheme.
The 10% cut in funding that many hon. Members have referred to, along with protection for pensioners, which the Government rightly want to ensure, means that others will face much larger cuts in their benefit. We will debate many of those issues under the next group of amendments.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that that includes the 1.9 million people in receipt of council tax benefit who do not have passported benefits?
Helen Jones
Yes, I agree, and we will consider those people as we proceed with discussions this evening. That is the group most often forgotten about in these discussions, and the most at risk.
Helen Jones
I could give such figures to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I do not have them at the moment, and they vary greatly from council to council. He raises an important issue. Local authorities that have many council tax benefit claimants will see a bigger cut in their spending power, and that is part of the problem.
Mr Kevan Jones
Although £55.1 million a year is paid out in council tax benefit in County Durham, less than £3 million is paid out in Hart district council in Hampshire.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the impression given by the Minister in his winding-up speech on the previous group of amendments—that use of the flexibility on second homes, and growing the economy, could make up the difference—the only option available to most councils is to raise council tax and that councils with a high proportion of band A properties will be at a severe disadvantage when it comes to the amount of money they will be able to raise?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is, of course, right. In trying to remedy the problem, the most disadvantaged councils will be those with the lowest tax bases. That has been true throughout all our discussions on the Bill. If demand goes up, councils will be faced under this scheme with either bearing the extra cost or, more likely, redesigning their schemes to restrict the number of those eligible. The Chartered Institute of Housing said it very clearly: council tax benefit awards will be
“squeezed precisely at the point at which there is the most need for help amongst low income households.”
London Councils estimated that if this scheme had been in place earlier, a shortfall of £400 million would have been faced in the five years to 2009-10.
The Government say that councils can do something about this. The Minister for Housing and Local Government says, in what I have to say reads like a rather garbled piece of evidence to the Select Committee, that considering whether to pass on the 10% reduction to claimants or to find the money elsewhere was “old-school thinking”—or what the rest of us might call “doing your sums”. I am sure that councils facing these cuts will have been relieved to hear that they could reduce the bill
“not by unfairly not paying people who are vulnerable and need it”,
which seems to me to be the precise effect of this scheme; no, he said, councils should be ensuring that there is
“a definite interest in starting up that new industrial estate, business park and getting economic activity going so there are jobs.”
Let me say this slowly, so that Ministers can understand it. If a firm closes down or lays off staff, a new business park does not open up the next day. People are out of work; they claim benefit; and if there is not enough money to pay that benefit, councils either have to cut what is available or find the money somewhere else from budgets already facing massive cuts. It is staggering to hear a Government who have presided over a rise in unemployment to 2.6 million and who have seen the economy flatline lecturing local councils about the need to open business parks. Only the Minister for Housing and Local Government, whose overwhelming self-confidence is matched only by the staggering depths of his ignorance, could come out with such nonsense.
It is not surprising that the Select Committee was unimpressed, saying:
“We have seen little evidence to support the hope that the new and better-paying jobs for individuals, immediately sufficient to offset the 10% reduction in the benefit budget will inevitably follow from these incentives.”
It continued to stress what we have talked about throughout this Committee stage—that
“the means of economic growth are never solely in the gift of individual local authorities.”
It is, of course, precisely the authorities that have already borne the brunt of the Government’s cuts that will find themselves in most difficulty with this council tax scheme.
The New Policy Institute estimated that five out of the 10 hardest-hit local authorities are among the top 10 most deprived areas in the country: Hackney, Newham, Liverpool, Islington and Knowsley. In the Liverpool city region, for example, the current proposals would result in cuts of between 17% and 23% for people of working age—those who are not pensioners. Let me give one example. A single person in Halton in a band A property would have to find £179.92 a year extra. In Sefton, which has a higher than average number of pensioners, a minimum reduction of 23% will be required for people of working age. A couple living in a band A property would have to find an extra £226.72 a year.
Those might not seem large sums to Government Members, but to people who have to count every penny, who sometimes run out of money before the end of the week, they are simply impossible to find. That is why we have tabled these amendments—to ensure that the needs of people of working age and those in poverty are taken into account. Where is this extra money going to come from? Do Government Members believe that it can be somehow magicked out of thin air? This does not even provide incentives to work, even if there were jobs to go to. The Government are not clear about the vulnerable households that should be protected. They have made it clear that they want to protect pensioners, but they are singularly unclear about other vulnerable groups. If, as is likely, local authorities will have to protect those on employment and support allowance, jobseeker’s allowance and income support, there will have to be an even bigger cut for the unprotected group—overwhelmingly the working poor. We have a Government who claim that they are freezing council tax, but they are actually increasing it for those least able to pay.
Helen Jones
I could not have put it better myself. An especially ridiculous aspect of the proposals is that the extent to which a council is hit will depend largely on the number of pensioners who live in the area. It is essentially a matter of chance. Moreover, if people on passported benefits are protected, it is possible that those in work will face a cut of up to 40%, which would wipe out any gains from the raising of personal allowances. The Government have absolutely no right to boast about a tax cut when they give with one hand and take with the other.
We are attempting to ensure that at least the needs of those of working age are not forgotten when councils draw up the scheme. I fully accept that Labour councils will try to do that anyway, although they have been hamstrung by the Government, but I do not believe that Government Members have demonstrated during our debates on the Bill that they understand how much these sums mean to the very poorest people. If I may use the Prime Minister’s words, they do not get it. They do not understand what it is like to run out of money before the next wage packet or benefit payment. They do not understand what it is like to have to choose between paying a bill and buying the children a new pair of shoes.
Mr Kevan Jones
Did the Minister not make it clear earlier that he “did not get it” when he dismissed a 16% decrease in council tax benefit as though it were loose change?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The problem is a lack of understanding of the fact that trying to find even an extra couple of pounds a week is simply impossible for those on such tight budgets.
This ill-thought-out scheme, which even Government Members agree is being rushed through, is full of holes. First, the Government have failed to align it with their much-hyped universal credit. Most of us would assume that a universal credit would be—well—universal, but that is not the case in this instance. Council tax benefit is to be split from universal credit: there will be one national scheme, another local scheme, two sets of administrative costs, and a huge scope for anomalies. Secondly, the Government are introducing a 10% cut while protecting pensioners. Thirdly, they want schemes that will not create work disincentives.
In a parliamentary answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on 17 June, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said:
“The Government intend that the general principles of supporting work incentives will be set out in guidance”
—guidance that the Secretary of State will provide, although the Minister tells us that he did not want to interfere in the schemes—
“which will help local authorities to design support.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 629W.]
How on earth can that work? Families will face two means tests, one for universal credit and one for council tax benefit, along with one set of national rules and goodness knows how many local rules. There will be one taper for universal credit; if councils fix a different taper for council tax, how can there be an integrated benefits system? If the taper is fixed at the same rate, when will it be calculated, before or after the calculation for universal credit? It simply will not work, and the people who will pay the price are the most vulnerable members of society: people who have lost their jobs, and families who are trying to do the right thing by going out to work for poverty wages. They will find themselves in an absolute mire.
Mr Jones
As was pointed out earlier, different councils may operate myriad different schemes. Would that not make people’s search for work more difficult? In central London, for example, some schemes might be advantageous while others would make it hard for people to move around to find work.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right; indeed, Government Members expressed similar reservations during our earlier debate. Such a disincentive is precisely the opposite of what the Government say they want.
Helen Jones
They will not help those people, and they will not help councils. We discussed the financial risks for councils earlier, but one of the main financial risks is an increase in the number of defaults because people are simply unable to pay—and, indeed, there is no evenness in that situation. In North-East Derbyshire 49.4% of recipients of council tax benefit are pensioners, while in North Kesteven the proportion is 53.2%. People living there face a bigger cut than people living in, say, Luton, where the proportion is only 28.2%. The scheme will subject people to cuts that are entirely arbitrary and unfair, while transferring the risk to local authorities. Many people will find themselves in real financial difficulty, while councils’ collection rates will fall.
Amendment 67 would require local authorities to make people aware of their entitlement to council tax benefit, and to give the necessary assistance to those who wish to make an application. I believe that good councils will do that anyway, but the Bill puts such pressure on local authorities that some—albeit, I believe, very few—will be deterred from seeking out claimants and informing them of their rights. Authorities are currently reimbursed monthly for expenditure that they actually incur, but the Government intend to pay grants, and we do not know what methodology they will use to set the level of those grants. Although they have promised to set allocations annually for the first two years, there is no certainty about what will happen after that.
The Government have already said, in their response to the consultation, that
“multi-year allocations would provide greater certainty and better allow local authorities to benefit financially where demand for support was reduced over several years.”
I think my hon. Friends will see immediately where that is going, because we have seen it before. I am talking about the creation of incentives for councils to reduce claims. In a time of economic uncertainty, and when the economy is flatlining, we cannot reduce those claims by bringing in lots of jobs, because the jobs are simply not there for people to get. Not only will local authorities that are experiencing increasing unemployment or falling wages leading to new claims be penalised, but the Government are already considering how to build in incentives to reduce claims.
There will clearly be pressures on local authorities. They will take all the financial risks associated with the possibility of demand exceeding supply, and they will also have to deal with the extra costs of setting up the scheme—which may or may not be fully reimbursed—as well as the costs of revising it regularly, of notifying people about it and of appeals. That final subject has hardly been mentioned so far in our debate, but appeals could well be considerable when people find that their entitlement is being cut. If we add in the Government’s desire to move to multi-year settlements, we can all see that there is a genuine risk of the number of claims being driven down.
That is why we have tabled the amendment. We want to ensure that local authorities must take proper steps to publicise their schemes, and also that they assist those facing difficulties in applying, perhaps because of disability or because they are not sufficiently literate or numerate and do not understand the forms. We have all come across such constituency cases. Having rights is of no use if people are ignorant of them or cannot exercise them, so it is only fair and reasonable that these safeguards should be built into the Bill from the start. Through them, we hope to counter the Government’s incentives to reduce the number of claims from people who have an entitlement to benefit.
Amendment 68 seeks to ensure that before a scheme is drawn up there is consultation not only with precepting authorities and what the Bill vaguely refers to as “others” with an interest, but with organisations that assist and represent people on the receiving end of this Government’s cuts. In respect of this Bill, it is fair to say that so far such organisations have been largely ignored. The big society clearly does not include those who give up their time to assist some of our most vulnerable citizens, and who deal every day with the impact of job losses and the consequences of child poverty and try to help those for whom every day is a struggle. Any redesign of the scheme ought to take account of the views of those who will be dealing with its impact.
As has been said, the impact will be extremely severe because it will come on top of the Government’s other changes to welfare benefits. Let me give an example of a one-parent family living in a three-bedroom house in Knowsley. Assuming that they can stay in their home even though they will be more than £800 a year worse off under the Government’s changes, they will then be hit again by this scheme because in Knowsley there is likely to be a 20% council tax benefit cut. They will therefore have to find a further £170 per year. Those who deal with people in our welfare system and who give advice to people in poverty should be consulted on the design of these schemes.
We often forget the great number of children who will be forced further into poverty by this scheme. In the Liverpool city region, 14.8% of children in poverty are in working families—those claiming working family tax credit or child tax credit. Those families will also be reliant on council tax benefit. What will happen to them when this scheme comes into force is very clear. More people will be unable to pay, so there will be more pressure, more debt and quite possibly more people falling into the hands of loan sharks. Anyone who does not think that will happen has never walked around a big estate and seen how these people operate. They often wait outside the place where people collect their benefit, and take the money straight off them. That is the reality of life on the edge. That is what many of our charitable organisations and benefit advice agencies deal with every day. It is only right that they should be consulted.
Amendments 70 and 71 seek to ensure—[Interruption.] Yes, it is the same story, I say to the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), and it will be the same story for many of my constituents, and his, when this scheme comes into effect. I am terribly sorry the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear about the reality of the impact this scheme will have. That is hard luck for him, but it is even worse luck for the people who will be on the receiving end.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend also agree that the Bill’s provisions will hit a lot of northern cities—including Burnley, perhaps—much harder than some of the leafier suburbs of the south?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right, but many different authorities will be affected. We heard earlier from Members on the Government Benches who represent south coast constituencies where there are lots of elderly people. They and their colleagues will be very surprised when they begin to realise the impact in their own constituencies of what they have voted for.
Amendments 70 and 71 seek to ensure that in any revision of the scheme by the Secretary of State the impact on all those who may receive, or be entitled to, benefit is considered. We therefore state that it is not only those of pensionable age who need to be considered, but those in employment or seeking work and people in receipt of other benefits, such as disability benefit. We do so because although under the current scheme 5.9 million people receive council tax benefit and 38% of them are over 65, 62%—3.7 million people—are under 65. These amendments seek to put their needs on the agenda, as they appear to have been forgotten by the Government. Also, 67% of claims are passported claims—they are from people receiving income support, jobseeker’s allowance or employment support allowance, for instance. Only 1.7 million of the 3.9 million on passported benefits are receiving pension credit, so most of these people are also of working age.
Other claims—the standard claims—are decided following a means test. Crucially, people who are working may get council tax benefit, subject to an income taper. Claimants lose 20p in council tax benefit for each additional pound they earn over the applicable amount. No one knows what the position will be for those people under localised schemes. The Government may issue guidance but, as usual in respect of this Bill, we are debating this topic without knowing what the guidance will say or even if the Government’s preferred options will be affordable for local councils. All local councils will be forced to cut the benefits available to non-pensioners and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said, they could cease payment entirely to certain groups.
We believe it is right to protect pensioners but, as we are making clear in the amendments, we also believe that others’ needs have to be considered. The Government seem to want to ignore those people as they have done with every other measure they have introduced. They strive to paint a picture of people on benefits as feckless and workshy. They talk about the price paid by hard-working taxpayers as though they were somehow a different species from those receiving benefits. I have to say, as someone who would clamp down ruthlessly on benefit fraud, that the vast majority of people on benefit receive it legitimately, and that most unemployed people receiving council tax benefit have paid taxes and would like nothing better than to be in work paying them again, as would all the disabled people I meet. Those in employment who receive council tax benefit are precisely the hard-working taxpayers—people who go out every day to work in low-paid jobs—whom the Government will penalise for doing the right thing by going out to work for poverty wages.
Mr Jones
The Secretary of State’s track record is there to see. On his edicts, he talks very much about localism, but in this Bill we already see that he has kept for himself swingeing powers to intervene. Over the past 18 months, we have had diktats to councils on weekly elections, including the idea that to save money they should have fewer pot plants, and lectures on the size of their balances, so I do not accept that he is a born-again devolutionist who is giving powers to local authorities. He will quite clearly intervene when he needs to.
Helen Jones
Does my hon. Friend also agree that the Secretary of State’s attitude to poorer people in our communities can be seen clearly from when he ran Bradford city council? We do not have to look into the crystal ball when we can read the book.
Mr Jones
Exactly. But the Secretary of State is also highly political, and the Bill does not take into account unemployment and other things because, again, that is part of its general sweep. It is about giving local councils not only responsibilities, but blame, because if a local council comes up with a certain scheme, the right hon. Gentleman can say, “It’s not my problem, it’s your local authority dealing with it,” even though he has poisoned the pill that he has given them with a 10% cut in the grant for council tax benefit.
The Secretary of State is also political in saying that councils are free to not put up council tax because they will get grant for three years, but that he can give no guarantee for the year before the next general election. That is because he wants to shift the blame for the decisions that this Government are taking—both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives—on to local councils. Slowly but surely, local councils and councillors of all persuasions are waking up to the fact that they will have to make tough decisions. They will have to not only divide the smaller cake after the 10% reduction in council tax benefit, but invent a scheme that is seen to be fair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) spoke about people who are in receipt of council tax benefit. There is a misnomer that is repeated on a number of occasions. Reading the press, one would think that every single person who gets housing benefit or council tax benefit is in receipt of unemployment benefit. They are not. Some of the poorest people in society are working very hard to keep a roof over their head. These changes will affect their ability to keep that roof over their head.
Another concern is that if there are no criteria for the various schemes, there will be a plethora of different schemes up and down the country.
Mr Jones
I will, and that is why it is important to have in the Bill the criteria by which authorities will draw up their local schemes.
The reason why I give the differences between areas is that it is quite clear that Durham will have to draw up its scheme very differently from the other authorities that I have mentioned. They also indicate that, as I said in last week’s debate, the Bill will favour southern councils over northern ones such as Durham. It is not a coincidence that all the constituencies that I read out happen to be Conservative.
Helen Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that councils will face a further penalty through the cost of appeals once the scheme comes in, which again will be worse for councils with more claimants? I suspect that there will be a lot of appeals, and there will be a cost in both staff time and legal representation. Councils will also face the cost of chasing up unpaid council tax, which will increase hugely.
Mr Jones
I agree, and that will have a disproportionate effect on northern councils such as County Durham. It will also be a complete nightmare for local authorities in London. I know that the Bill allows for data sharing between local councils and the Department for Work and Pensions, but given the movement of people in London it will be very difficult indeed for councils to chase people up.
What are the options open to councils such as Durham, given the 10% cut, to make up the difference? The Minister and the hon. Member for Bradford East said that it would be made up by charging a different rate on second homes.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Lord Beamish and Helen Jones(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Helen Jones
Amendment 27 is a probing amendment designed to test the Government’s intentions with regard to the implementation of the scheme. The Bill states that the “Secretary of State may”—the phrase is repeated throughout the schedule—by regulations determine whether a local authority is required to make a levy payment and, if so, the amount of that payment. What we want to know from the Minister is why the Bill uses “may” in this case rather than “must”. It is clear from clause 1 that any regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but it is not clear whether the Secretary of State intends to proceed by regulation in all cases. We are advised that the use of “may” rather than “must” or “shall” implies that he might proceed in some other way. I am not sure how, although it might be by ministerial diktat, by a written ministerial statement or by a finance report, but it is important to make the situation clear, because the Committee is dealing with an enabling Bill that gives huge power to the Secretary of State, without being clear about how it will be used.
We would therefore like to hear from the Minister exactly what the Government’s plans are, because the Bill is not consistent. In several other places, it uses “must” in relation to regulations, so what is the reason for the different wording in the case before us? The Minister must forgive me if I appear to be developing a suspicious nature; it comes from dealing with him for so long on this Bill. But we would welcome an assurance from him that the regulations on this point, and on the others that we have highlighted in this group of amendments, will be placed before the House and not simply introduced through a statement from the Department.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend think that local government will feel confident that power is not being centralised if we are able to see the regulations now, as the Bill is going through Parliament, rather than being tagged on, as she suggests, once it has done so?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I, like other Opposition Members, have mentioned the Government’s failure to produce any draft regulations, and the reason why is that they have proceeded so quickly with the Bill and did not want to take it into Committee upstairs. In turn, we all know the reason for that: they simply do not have enough business to go through on the Floor of the House, because their business is snarled up in the Lords.
Amendment 40 would add new sub-paragraph (1A) to paragraph 20 of the schedule and require the Secretary of State to specify in regulations exactly what he defines as “disproportionate growth” or—the term that is often used—“disproportionate benefit”. The amendment, like many that we have tabled, is an attempt to address what my hon. Friend has just highlighted: the alarming lack of clarity in the Bill and the consequent uncertainty for local authorities.
We know the mechanism that the Government intend to use to calculate the levy. After abandoning ideas for fixed-rate and banded levies, they intend to create a proportionate levy, which in effect is an individual rate for each local authority, but not only do we have no clarity about the percentage level, but it is still not entirely clear what will constitute a disproportionate benefit.
The Government, in their response to the consultation, say that the proportionate levy will create a system to allow a local authority to retain growth in a fixed proportion to its baseline level. The levy is intended to tackle the gearing effect, whereby authorities with a high tax base gain more from the same growth than those with a low tax base, but it does not do so. It mitigates the effect; it does not tackle it. The simple fact of basing a levy on growth above a baseline level, however, leaves many questions unanswered, and amendment 40 is an attempt to get some answers from the Government, because, unless there is some certainty about the definition, local authorities will find themselves in real difficulty when deciding on future projects.
Let us imagine, for example, a rural authority that loses a large employer, one that pays a high proportion of local business rates. The authority’s business rate income goes down, and might do so before the baseline is set. It then attracts another employer to the area. When that employer starts up, the authority gets a big increase in business rates for one year; the increase tapers off after that. Is that a disproportionate gain, given that the local authority is simply replacing income that it had previously lost?
What about a town that redevelops its centre? The council would see a fall in business rates but when the redevelopment was complete, it would see an increase. Would that be treated as a disproportionate gain, given that the council might use the increase to fund the development in the first place? How would the levy then apply to a TIF 1 project—as opposed to a TIF 2 project, which would be outside the scheme?
Furthermore, the Secretary of State has given himself a Henry VIII power to reset the scheme. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) should learn that PPSs should be seen and not heard. How would the council get any certainty for future planning?
Helen Jones
Again, my right hon. Friend makes a telling point. The consultation document merely says that there will be a proportionate levy. The obvious question to put is this: “What is the proportion and how will it be decided for each authority?”
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation would vary from authority to authority? For example, Northumberland is losing Alcan, which is a large employer in the south-east of the county and therefore a large contributor to the local tax base. There is a big difference between Northumberland losing such an employer and, say, the closing down of a Westminster office block that will be replaced quite quickly.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend reminds me of a good point that I was going to make earlier. I had Northumberland in mind because it is a place that I am very fond of and know well. If Northumberland has lost Alcan by the time the baseline is set, it will be set on the basis of lower business rates. If the authority replaces Alcan with another employer, will it be deemed to have made a disproportionate gain? The Minister must explain why an authority that is trying to do the right thing by bringing in new employment to replace what has been lost should be penalised for that.
An authority will need to be able to make representations when the amount of levy that it is going to be asked to pay is first published. As I said, we do not know whether the levy payments will be included in the local government finance report. That is because the Bill is so vague.
We think that it is only fair to specify that, if a local authority is required to make a levy payment, it should be notified and be allowed to make representations about the calculation before the final decision is made. It might be that an authority challenges the basis of the decision that it has made a disproportionate gain. That is unlikely, but it could happen. It might be simply that the calculation has not been done correctly. We have seen that many times. That is why we have amending local government finance reports. It has been known occasionally for Departments to get their calculations wrong. In such circumstances, councils should have a mechanism for making representations before the final decision. Local authorities are, after all, partners in this process. Neither the Secretary of State nor any other Minister would want to be a provincial governor figure handing down unchallengeable decisions.
Helen Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
With these amendments, we return to our discussion about ensuring that any local government finance scheme takes account of the varying level of need in our communities, a problem that the Government seem determined to ignore. Interestingly, the Bill does not lay down the basis on which the Secretary of State must distribute the whole or a part of the remaining balance on a levy account at the end of the year, if he decides to do so. That is the problem with the Bill: too much of it is left opaque; too much is unspecified. Even Ministers have difficulty explaining it properly.
I cannot remember whether it was the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), but on Second Reading a Minister was reduced to reading out the explanatory notes when asked to explain the Bill in plain English, but we do know that embedded in the Bill is a blind refusal to address need. It is there in the use of the current financial settlement as the baseline, which, as the Yorkshire and Humberside councils said, means that baselines may not reflect the actual funding that councils need to deliver services to their local communities from April 2013. It is there also in the Government’s refusal to put anything in the Bill about need being taken into account when determining central and local shares; and it is there in the Government voting against our amendments to ensure that need was debated alongside local government finance reports.
It is all very well for the Prime Minister to talk about caring capitalism, but as we debate this Bill we do not see much care for the needs of the elderly, for children, for the working poor or for any of those who rely on local government services. Tory Members ignore it; Liberal Democrat Members weep crocodile tears and then troop into the Lobby after their Tory masters, anyway.
We see the same mindset operating when we consider the distribution of the levy balance. It is open to the Secretary of State not to distribute it at all, and we accept that there may be times when the levy needs to build up from year to year in order to fund safety net payments. If he does decide to distribute it, and it is nice to see the Secretary of State in his place, we will be back to the “all-power-to-Pickles” scenario. There is nothing in the Bill to stop him doing as he likes. What will his decision be based on—on whether he once had a nice day out somewhere, or the fact that an open space was named “Pickles park” in his honour? I cannot see many local authorities represented by Opposition Members getting money on that basis.
In Warrington, we have an Attlee avenue and a Bevin avenue. When the noble Baroness Thatcher was in power, the council even named one of its buildings “Poll Tax house”, to remind people of how the payments that they made had been imposed on them. That is a salutary reminder of how the last time they were in government, the Tories got it so wrong on local government finance. I cannot see us having a Pickles avenue, a Neill nook or anything else that might get us money on that basis.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend’s constituency is rather moderate; I have Marx, Engels and Lenin terraces in my constituency. It is clear what the Secretary of State will do—exactly what he did last year in the local government settlement. He will reward councils in the south-east of England that vote Conservative.
Helen Jones
That is interesting; I suppose that my hon. Friend could think about a change of name to get money for his local authority, although I doubt that that would serve him.
The fundamental problem with the Bill is that too much discretion is given to the Secretary of State and there is no consideration of need. Without the concept of needs-related payment in the Bill, the Government cannot pretend that they want to protect the most vulnerable. Clearly, they do not. The amendment is yet another that tries to address that huge omission.
Wherever we look, we see evidence of the real disparities between different areas. Many examples have been cited in this Committee, but it is always possible to find more. In Knowsley, for example, 58,000 people—more than a third—live in areas that are among the top 5% most deprived in the country. There has been a 47% increase in social services referrals, which the council has had to deal with following the baby P case. In Sunderland, 50,000 people live in areas that are in the top 10% of the most deprived in the country. In such areas, councils face enormous problems in attracting new jobs and meeting service needs—despite their constant efforts to do so, which have often been denigrated by Government Members during this debate.
Helen Jones
That is an important point that we have not considered so far. I believe that local authority finance officers, because of the risks and uncertainties inherent in the Bill, will advise their authorities to build up bigger reserves. Authorities have been criticised by the Government for holding too much money in reserve, but the Bill almost incentivises a prudent authority to do that.
Mr Kevan Jones
If an authority did that—it would be prudent financial management—it would be named and shamed, a tool that the Secretary of State uses on many occasions. It would be said that somehow the authority could redistribute that money and keep down council tax.
Helen Jones
That is an important point. Whatever happens, some local authorities cannot win.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Time and again we find in the Bill a lack of clarity and lack of certainty for local authorities.
How on earth can this be the right way to deal with local services? Local authorities need to be able to plan and to have a degree of certainty in their finances, yet here we have a recipe for uncertainty. Our simple amendment would require the Secretary of State, if he decided to make a payment, to hand over the money within the following financial year. Such a provision would give ample time for him to do the calculations, or at least get someone else to do them, to determine the amount to be paid and to hand it over. Local authorities would then be certain about what they were receiving and when, and, importantly, they would be given more certainty about how the scheme would operate.
I will be interested to hear the Minister’s arguments against the amendments. Does he believe that if local authorities know they are going to get a payment and when, they will blow it all on riotous living—that they will decorate their town halls with bunting and order large shipments of chocolate cake—or does he believe, as we do, that they will use it to improve services? His arguments can mean only two things: that he expects local authorities to behave irresponsibly, which is like saying to children, “You can’t have your pocket money all at once because you might spend it all on sweets”, or—I think this is the real reason—that the Treasury wants to hang on to the money.
Local councillors deserve better than that. They are our partners in delivering services. They should be given as much certainty as possible and trusted to act responsibly. The amendments would achieve that, and I commend them to the Committee. It might be helpful, Mr Robertson, to let you know that we will seek to divide the Committee on amendment 33.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Robertson.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) used a good analogy when she said that this measure is intended to centralise power but decentralise blame. Local councils will be given options over, for example, a 10% cut in council tax benefit. They will face some difficult decisions about how that is to be distributed. When the Minister wrote to Newcastle’s The Journal last year, he did not even mention that in his supportive letter on the letters page. We need to be clear to local people that this is not about decentralisation but about putting power back into the hands of the Secretary of State and, ultimately, those of the Treasury.
We had an interesting discussion on the previous group of amendments about whether there would be any money left to distribute at the end of the year. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) asked the Minister what would then happen, but he did not answer. I suspect that this mechanism is being used so that the Government can use local government-raised finance to offset central Government expenditure. It might be given back to local authorities, but only as a substitute for other types of grant. It is all about centralisation.
In the settlement of the accounts in the first few months of the coalition Government, the Secretary of State was the first Minister to run to the Treasury saying, “I’ve got my plans and I’ll give up my savings to meet the Chancellor’s targets.” If he again finds himself with a large pot of money left at the centre, no doubt he will offer it up to get himself some credence in the Treasury and in the eyes of the Prime Minister as the Secretary of State who is doing best in financially managing his Department, even though the pain of that is being borne on the shoulders of local businesses and local people.
Helen Jones
I am going to make a bit of progress, because we have to get through this.
The way to avoid those problems is to have a reset at regular intervals. Some have suggested three years, and some five. We have opted for three years in our new clause 7, because we believe that local authorities have become used to three-year financial settlements and that they have operated very well. That option is also in line with the responses to the consultation, where only 23% of respondents felt that 10-year resets were appropriate. So much for the Government taking note of the consultation.
In new clause 5, we have also suggested that local authorities should have a right to be consulted each year about whether a reset is required before the Secretary of State publishes the local government finance report. We have done that because we think that local government is the best judge of what is happening on the ground. It should be treated as a partner in the process and allowed a say. Councils would be able to make such representations if they felt that unforeseen problems had been discovered, if major changes had occurred or simply if the system was not working as the ever-optimistic ministerial team assures us it will. Such a mechanism would recognise the key role that councils play in representing communities. That right is fundamental, if we in this House believe that councils have a democratic mandate of their own—as I think we all do—and should be able to participate in the process. The Secretary of State would have to consider representations received, and publish his decision and the reasons for it.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Lord Beamish and Helen Jones(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Helen Jones
We have tabled these amendments because we are concerned about the way the Bill is being rushed through the House and, should it be enacted, the short time allowed for its implementation. Understandably, the Bill deals with difficult questions. It is not easy when dealing with local government finance to resolve exactly where the line should be drawn between central and local government, how far services should be uniform and how far we are prepared to tolerate variations in them. I accept that the Government carried out a consultation before bringing in the Bill, but the problem is that the Bill seems to reflect little of that consultation.
In addition, the Bill is being taken through the House at a break-neck pace. It was published on 19 December, just before the Christmas recess, and had its Second Reading on 10 January, which was the first day the House returned and only two sitting days later. Instead of sending the Bill upstairs to Committee, where we could have taken evidence, which we cannot do on the Floor of the House—that is the important thing about Public Bill Committees—the Government insisted that the Bill should be considered in Committee of the whole House in three days, and I think that it was originally meant to be two days.
Why are the Government so worried about taking evidence upstairs in Committee? They might be a little worried about what they could hear, because the truth is that local councils, having started to look at the Bill in detail, are particularly concerned about the speed of implementation for its provisions and are struck by the number of powers being given to the Secretary of State.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that another possible motive for considering the Bill on the Floor of the House is the coalition Government’s botched programming of business for this Session and the fact that, were it not being considered here, there would be little to be heard in the Chamber?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which I will come to in a moment.
If the Bill comes into force, one extremely complex system will be removed and replaced with another extremely complex system, without time for local authorities to prepare for it.
Helen Jones
My right hon. Friend, who has been a doughty champion of his constituency for many years, hits on exactly the point that we are trying to make: unless the distribution of the central and local share is based on a number of factors, inequality will be built into the system—indeed, it is built in already because of the starting point. We do not believe that this approach is good enough. The future of communities and of the services available, particularly to the poorest people in this country, cannot simply be left to chance. If the Government believe in fairness and really believe that they would take into account the factors we mention in any case in determining central and local shares, I cannot see why they would have a problem in accepting our amendment. After all, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister told us during their now forgotten love-in back in May 2010, before the romance had gone and they started squabbling, that they
“will ensure that fairness is at the heart of…decisions so that all those most in need are protected.”
That is all we are asking for in this amendment and the others that follow it.
Unfortunately, the Bill does not provide that fairness. If it goes through as drafted, service provision will, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne said, increasingly be based on the ability to raise local business rates and council tax. As council tax increases will often be subject to a referendum, most of the demand will be put on local business rates.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend also recognise that, for authorities such as South Tyneside council, which has nearly 50% of its properties in band A—that compares with a figure of 2% for Kensington and Chelsea—the existing system makes it more difficult to raise any additional money from the domestic side of the rates?
Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Debate between Lord Beamish and Helen Jones(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that we are not even seeing those amendments until two days before the Bill goes into Committee, giving outside organisations and members of the Committee no time to scrutinise them? Does that not show that the Government are running scared of proper scrutiny?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. One innovation is the introduction of pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills by a Committee. In 2001, I served on one of the very first such Committees, which considered the Civil Contingencies Bill. That was an extremely good process during which the then Government accepted well over 100 recommendations and amendments. With a timetable of 10 sittings—not 10 days, as the Prime Minister said today—there will be very little time for outside bodies to scrutinise and have professional input into the Government’s amendments.
The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, says that we cannot prolong the agony or uncertainty faced by the health service. I remind him that we are in this position because his party is supporting the back-of-a-fag packet proposals dreamed up by the Secretary of State for Health. If he really wants to be able to say that he has made a difference, he should have voted with the Opposition when he had the opportunity. It is interesting that he is again the sole Liberal Democrat on the Government Benches, even though we are being told that it is the Liberal Democrats who have made major changes to the Bill.
If the Bill is to get proper scrutiny, if we in this place are to get the respect of electors in thinking that we are doing a proper job of scrutiny and, more importantly, if we are going to get the health service that this country deserves, this is not the way to do it. I predict that we will get to 14 July, when most of the amendments will not have been debated, and once again let the other place dismember the legislation. We can see the job it is doing up there at the moment, and that is because ill-thought-out and ill-prepared Bills are being brought forward by this coalition Government.
Finance Bill
Debate between Lord Beamish and Helen Jones(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this House again after several years of being allowed to say only things like, “Beg to move” and, “Tomorrow”. I crave the indulgence of the House, as I am not used to making substantial speeches any more.
I want to go back to what we have heard over the past few months from both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. It has been a constant refrain of, “We’re all in this together.” Now that we have seen their Budget and the Finance Bill, we can see how hollow that soundbite was. What is taking place under this Con-Dem Government is very simply an attack on the poorest people in this country conducted by people who think poverty is not being able to afford the uniform for the Bullingdon club. It is an attack on working families on low wages conducted by people who are the inheritors of trust funds. It is an attack on jobs fronted up by two people—a Prime Minister who got his first job after a phone call from Buckingham Palace, and a Deputy Prime Minister who got into the European Commission because his next door neighbour knew the right man to ring. If only it was as easy for everyone else out there.
It is clear from a simple analysis of the Budget that the poorest are affected three times as much by the increase in VAT as the richest; that the poorest 10% of the population lose as a percentage of their income twice as much as the richest 10%. It is significant, when we look at the measures in the Finance Bill, that a private client partner from Ernst and Young was quoted in The Guardian as saying:
“the fiscal impact on the higher earners is largely restricted to the increase in CGT together with some fiscal drag caused by the freezing of the higher rate threshold.”
That is what we are seeing in this Bill.
Mr Kevan Jones
Has my hon. Friend seen the excellent Library note on VAT? Does she agree that the lowest 10% of households are worse off because they pay some 18% of their disposable income in VAT while the richest spend less than 10%?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right. It is often forgotten in the discussion on VAT that much of the spending of the richest households is discretionary, while the spending of the poorest households is necessary. That is what the Government propose to tax.
Helen Jones
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That serves to show us the ignorance on the Government Benches of the lives of some of the poorest people in this country. I could forgive them if their Budget and Finance Bill were simply the product of ignorance, but they are the product of ideology. It is the Government’s decision to take £40 billion out of the economy, to raise VAT and to cut investment allowances for business, and it is a purely ideological decision. They pin their hopes on an increase in growth, yet even their own leaked Treasury figures tell us that we will lose 1.3 million jobs as a result of these measures, not only in the public sector but in the private sector.
We know already the plans of the Government parties for jobs. They began early on by cutting the future jobs fund—118,000 jobs for young people, 18,000 in a region such as mine, wiped out. I want to quote what the Liberal Democrat candidate in my constituency, described on his leaflet as the strong local candidate, said before the election. He was so strong that he managed to come third in the parliamentary election and third in what was previously a Liberal Democrat council seat. He said:
“Lib Dems believe that if you are unlucky enough to lose your job you should be helped there and then to get another one.”
Yet the measures in the Bill and the Budget will destroy jobs and introduce no measures to create them.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with the cuts announced yesterday in Building Schools for the Future and the massive cuts in local government is the belief “public sector bad, private sector good”? A couple of weeks ago, I met the Civil Engineering Contractors Association in the north-east, which told me that its members were relying on BSF and investment in roads. The cuts will have an impact not just on their businesses but on jobs in my constituency.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right. The Treasury’s own forecast shows a huge loss of private as well as public sector jobs. Many private firms depend on public sector contracts to keep going. More to the point, enterprise does not flourish when so much money is taken out of the economy that it becomes devastated. If the Government cut benefits, freeze wages and cut public sector jobs, that does not lead to a vital entrepreneurial culture but to a culture of fear in which people do not take risks.
Let me take one example of the way in which the Government have failed to consider the knock-on effect of the Finance Bill. They propose to increase VAT. That will have a damaging effect on the retail sector, yet that sector provides many entry-level jobs and jobs for women who wish to combine work with looking after children. It provides jobs for the women whom the Government want to get back to work when their children go to school. If those jobs are not there, where will those women go? There is simply no joined-up thinking here.
Helen Jones
I want to finish my point first. We are talking about an attempt by the Government to switch lane by saying that what is happening is not a decision of the Government, nor the fault of the banks, which brought us into global economic meltdown because of their irresponsible lending and reliance on financial instruments that they did not understand. The Government’s treatment of the banks compared with their treatment of some of the poorest people is significant.
The Chancellor made great play of his levy on the banks, which will raise £2 billion a year, but the big five banks alone will gain £1.6 billion from the changes he set out to capital gains tax. No attempt has been made to rein in City bonuses—in fact, rather than coshing the banks over the head, he tickled them with a feather duster. So good was the news for the banks that their shares actually went up.
Compare that with the treatment that the Chancellor has meted out to industry. We hear much about the fall in capital gains tax, although the Government are legislating that for one year only. What we do not hear is that that is being paid for by cuts in investment allowances, which hit manufacturing the hardest. There we have it: those who want to invest for the long term and capital intensive industries that want to create jobs in the future will be hit. This is a Bill for industries that are less capital intensive but that are making vast profits—industries that, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies said, are “typified by the financial sector”. What we have here is simple: rewards for those wanting to make a fast buck and a hit for those who are interested in long-term investment. It is the Del Boy Bill—it could have been written by Trotter’s Independent Trading. I am only sorry that Rodney has disappeared from the Dispatch Box.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that those same banks are continuing to build up their balance sheets by not lending to small businesses—precisely the businesses that need investment now to grow, if we are to achieve the growth forecasts? There is nothing in the Budget that will force the banks to make sure that vital capital is supplied to those growing industries.
Helen Jones
Indeed—that is correct. What is more worrying is that linked with that is the Government’s failure to provide in the Bill any hope or assistance for British firms that want to compete in the global market and create jobs in the long term. It is a tale of two cities: on the one hand, there is the City of London; on the other, there is Sheffield—what the Deputy Prime Minister called throughout the election, “my city of Sheffield”. Well, we have seen what he plans for Sheffield—absolutely nothing. The Government’s attitude can be summed up in two words: Sheffield Forgemasters. There is nothing in the Bill or in the Budget that helps manufacturing industry in the long term.
Helen Jones
I am grateful to hon. Gentleman for intervening, because I want to say to him that his party is in government. If the Liberal Democrats want to do something about that, they can, but they have singularly failed to do so.
Let us consider the people who are paying the price of this Finance Bill—those who will be affected by the rise in VAT and who are already being hit by the cuts announced by the Government in their Budget. The Chancellor talks a lot about those on benefits. The implication, unstated but always there, is that they are all scroungers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most people who will be hit by the cuts that he has announced are from hard-working families on low incomes. He has already announced that those on family incomes of a little more than £15,000 will see their tax credits cut. By 2012-13, anyone with a family income of more than £30,000—£15,000 each—will lose their tax credits. Child benefit has been frozen, which is an effective cut of £116 a year, but those people will have to pay the VAT increase that the Government have imposed on their spending.
Mr Kevan Jones
Is my hon. Friend also aware of the fact—unannounced, I think, because it did not get many headlines—that the Government are going to cap mortgage interest relief for those who become unemployed? That will affect hard-working people who, through no fault of their own, become unemployed, and it will lead to evictions. That is in stark contrast with the previous, Labour Government, who protected those people.
Helen Jones
Indeed, and if my hon. Friend will permit me I shall come on to that issue in a moment.
Before I move on, I want to mention the cuts that will specifically hit families with young children, including the scrapping of the baby element of child tax credits and the scrapping of the new toddler credits for one and two-year-olds. That will cost an eligible family more than £1,000 a year, even before they start paying the price of the VAT rise.
Helen Jones
The hon. Gentleman ought to be wary of making jokes about mental health. I entered this House from a constituency where children growing up in 1997 had never known what it was to see someone in their household go to work. A Labour Government changed that and invested in decent homes, but Liberal and Tory councils constantly sold the pass on affordable homes by allowing developers to buy themselves out of their obligations, so we will take no lectures from him on employment or housing.
The National Housing Federation states that the Government’s planned housing benefit cuts alone will put 200,000 more people at risk of homelessness and concentrate social and economic problems in the more deprived areas. It is the ultimate Tory nimbyism to want to move people out of city centres. They used to say, “Get on your bike and look for work.” They now say, “Get on your bike and get out of my sight, because we don’t want to know anymore.”
Someone in London with rent of £350 a week would lose £35 in housing benefit if they were unemployed for 12 months. I ask Government Members what is the jobseeker’s allowance for a single person? Anyone? No, I thought not. It is £65.45 a week. If those people meet the shortfall in their rent, they will be left with £30.45 to live on, to buy food and clothes and to pay for utilities and the increased VAT rate that this Government will impose on them. Not only is that not the mark of a civilised society, but it leaves those people with less money to live on in a week than many Government Members would spend on a meal—a lot less in some cases.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend provides the example of London, but on Friday I met the chief executive of a local housing organisation who told me that she is unsure of what the cap will be on rents in Durham. If it is as low as £57 a week, which has been mooted, she says large numbers of individuals will have to make up the difference and some, including pensioners, will be evicted.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right. It will also cause huge damage to social housing providers, who will face more and more arrears. That is the problem with the Finance Bill and with the Budget. They do nothing to create the jobs that the Government tell us we need, and they squeeze the poorest.
Let us look at what the Government plan for disabled people. The vast majority of people with disabilities would like nothing better than to have a job, and the previous Government did much to get them back into work. However, this Government plan what they call a simpler process—something that they say will reduce dependency and promote work. But the major flaw is that getting people with disabilities back into work is not a simple process. What happens to those with fluctuating conditions or mental health problems? They cannot be assessed by a simple test; that is exactly the point. We are bound to conclude that it is simply an exercise in cutting the budget by £1.4 billion.
There will be no jobs if we go down the road suggested by the Bill. At the end of that road, we encounter the risk of a double-dip recession, billions being taken out of the economy, the poorest and their spending attacked and reduced, and major cuts in benefits. That will not support the economy; it will undermine the growth of the economy. I say to my hon. Friends that this Finance Bill risks devastating the economy, dividing communities and producing the kind of recession that we saw in the 1980s. That is not a risk that we Labour Members are prepared to take, and that is why we will vote against the Bill.