Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Mike Hancock

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on, and welcome him to, his new Front-Bench position. He has said that he has nothing in principle against programme motions, but had he been in the House before the last election he would have had to sit through the long debates in which Members who now sit on the Government Front Bench used to argue that programme motions were an evil of our age. They have not taken long to embrace programme motions or to use them as a way of curtailing debate.

It is universally acknowledged that the Queen’s Speech was not jam-packed with proposed legislation, to the extent that we now routinely have Back-Bench business debates and Opposition days. This Government are reluctant to ensure that this House properly scrutinises Bills. If that is to happen, time has to be provided for it.

A number of Bills have been rushed through this place with undue haste this Session, only to then be filleted in the other place, where more time is given for scrutiny. Sometimes that has been down to bad draftsmanship, and this Bill is a good example of that. My hon. Friend has already referred to the 89 pages of amendments and new clauses that have been tabled, which smacks to me of there being something wrong with the drafting of the Bill.

My hon. Friend said that this is a Christmas tree Bill, but I would say that it is a dog’s breakfast—a dangerous dog’s breakfast—of a Bill. If we look back at previous attempts to legislate on the serious issue of dangerous dogs, we will see that getting it wrong can cost lives, so it is very important that we get it right this time. That can only be done through proper scrutiny by the House.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

In the absence of any amendment to the programme motion, what could the House possibly gain from voting against it? If we did so we would, in effect, lose a whole day.

[Mr Jones]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman, whose presence in the House has been limited because of illness, to his place. The fact is that there is a general trend under this Government to limit the time to consider all Bills, not just this one.

The Bill raises serious issues and has a wide scope, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has said. It covers everything from the important issue of dangerous dogs to forced marriage and major issues of police reform, including a provision allowing foreigners to become police chiefs. Also—I know this is an issue of huge concern to some Government Members—it relates to the Terrorism Act 2000 and extradition. If we are to have a serious debate about such issues and ensure public confidence in us, we need more time than that allotted by the programme motion.

The Minister has said that the programme motion is generous because it gives us an extra day, but that is not the case, unless the Minister’s day usually finishes at 5.30 pm on a Tuesday. Why can we not extend the time available for consideration until the usual time of 7 pm, which would at least give us nearly two extra hours? I understand that Government Members are keen to attend to certain social engagements. I was surprised to read in the press at the weekend that the Opposition had agreed to the programme motion when they clearly had not. It has been a trend of this Government to believe that if they say something, it must be true, and if they keep saying something, it most definitely is true.

This House must do a proper job of scrutinising this large piece of legislation, which contains some crucial issues that will affect our constituents directly. The allocated time is not sufficient to ensure that we do that.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Mike Hancock

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.

What we have seen from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) is a classic Liberal Democrat tactic: sit on the fence, give an impression—obviously with a leaflet out this weekend—of how she opposes and spoke against the proposal, and then go along and vote with the Government. I remind her, however, that if she and her Liberal Democrat colleagues choose to vote against the Bill, this Government will not get it through. Although she raises articulately the issues that will affect her local council, she cannot get away from the fact that, when these draconian proposals come in and affect many councils, including her own, there will only be one person whom they have to blame, and that will be her for voting for them.

I hope that, come the general election, people reflect on that point, because this is not about the Conservatives doing nasty things to Dorset, but about the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats doing nasty things to local government, and the hon. Lady is taking part in it. I am sorry, but I am not prepared to see her shed crocodile tears for the proposals and then troop through the Division Lobby. If she believed in what she was saying, she would vote against the measures and stand up for local government, a sector that I understand she comes from herself.

It was said last week that what local government requires is stability, and it does, but this is another example—we had one last week with the localisation of the business rate—of massive instability being introduced to local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said that there was nothing wrong in principle with devolving council tax benefits to local councils, and I totally agree, but if it is brought in with a 10% cut, as the Bill proposes, and on the current time scale, it will have a massive effect on many local councils and individual recipients of council tax benefit.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

I do not agree with the benefits being devolved to local authorities, so what does the hon. Gentleman, who is arguing against localising the benefits under discussion, see as the real benefit of doing so?

[Mr Jones]

I would have no problem with a national scheme that was administered locally. The current system with the DWP is cumbersome, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman, because the Bill is going to create an absolute technicolour dreamcoat of schemes throughout the country, including some next door to one another, as we have just heard, in Poole, where two local authorities could have two completely different schemes because of their local circumstances.

However, this is a cleverly construed proposal, and we have to keep exposing what the Secretary of State is up to, because he talks about the devolution of decision making, which is what the measure is, but it is the devolution of decision making—with blame. He is instigating a cut of 10% in council tax benefits and saying to local councils, “Right, you decide how it will actually be administered.” Then, when they take those tough decisions, he will stand back and say, “It’s not my fault, it’s the local council’s fault.” I remind Government Members that that will include Liberal Democrat and Conservative councils. They will have to make tough decisions. The Secretary of State is prepared to hide behind those councils. I accept that he has written off most Liberal Democrats and does not care about them, but the effect will also be felt by local Conservatives.

Amendment 79 is actually quite modest. It states that if we are going to introduce the new scheme, we should start on a neutral basis. It asks for a level playing field so that everybody knows where they are, with no 10% cut. We will talk later about time limits. The fact that this all has to be done by 31 January 2013 will scare many local authority treasurers to death. They are having to second-guess what contingency they will need to bring the scheme in.

The Bill makes no assessment of the differences between councils. Councils with a large number of council tax benefit recipients, which are mainly in the north of England, will not only have the problem of administering such large numbers of people, but will be disproportionately affected. I will give some examples. County Durham has 63,494 council tax benefit claimants, which is 15% of the population. That costs £55.1 million. In comparison, Hart in Hampshire has only 3,029 council tax benefit claimants, which is 4.2% of the population. That costs a mere 3% of expenditure. Likewise, the famous Wokingham, which we cited last week, has only 5,159 claimants, which is 3.9% of the population. That makes up 5.3% of the council’s total expenditure. The 10% cut and the administrative nightmare of bringing it in will be a lot easier to manage for councils with a small number of council tax benefit recipients.

The Secretary of State talks about localism and devolving matters to local councils, but if we read the Bill carefully, we see that he has kept back powers for himself. If he is not happy with the scheme or a council does not implement it by 31 January 2013, he has the power, by order, to implement it. It is not clear whether he will intervene in that way if he is not happy with how a council implements the scheme.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is correct that the problem with the scheme is that it comes with the 10% cut. It is important to look at the people who are in receipt of council tax benefit. The myth peddled in the media and by the Conservative party is that they are largely people on benefits. The statistics to September 2011 show that 5.9 million people are in receipt of council tax benefit in Great Britain. Of those people, 2.2 million are pensioners, who will not be affected by the scheme. Of the people who will be affected, 1.9 million or 33% are in receipt of standard non-passported benefits—that is, they are not claiming benefits—and the remaining 3.9 million or 67% are on various benefits. Of the people on benefits, 1.3 million receive income support, 600,000 receive jobseeker’s allowance, 300,000 receive employment and support allowance, and 1.7 million receive pension credit. A large number of people, through no fault of their own, will see their incomes squeezed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Hancock]

May I say how nice it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Crausby?

I wish to raise my concern about the fact that we are approaching 7 o’clock and will hardly get halfway down the selection list. The time available is totally inadequate. Goodness knows what the Government were thinking about, giving us just three days in Committee. It is an absolute travesty. I only hope that they will give us at least one whole day, and possibly two, on Report to allow debate on many of the matters that have not been discussed in Committee.

If the House is to do justice to the Bill, we should at least get a chance to discuss some of the very important amendments that have been tabled. I see them not as wrecking amendments but as helpful, creative amendments that would show the Government the strength of feeling in the House. Legitimate concerns have been raised from both sides of the House on this group of amendments alone, and if I were the Minister leading the Bill I would like to give the House more time to discuss them properly. If we are not careful, we will end up with a dog’s dinner, which cannot be right or fair to local authorities.

The most important issue in this group of amendments is raised in new clause 11, with which I agree entirely. It gets to the very essence of what the Committee has discussed on previous days. It is about the stability and sustainability of local government and its ability to stay clearly focused on its task. Support for new clause 11 is essential to give local authorities a fair chance of implementing the scheme.

The Government have expressed no clear and positive view about what they can do to help local authorities. I ask Ministers what is wrong with new clause 11 if they believe in fairness and in giving local authorities a proper opportunity to get the scheme right. Who will benefit if it is got wrong? No one, least of all the people who claim benefits. Most of the blame will fall on local authorities, and once again we are going down the well trodden path whereby the Government decide to disrobe themselves of their responsibilities and pass them off to local government, but forget to put the resources in place to help things happen.

I do not suppose that at the end of this debate the Minister will dish out to Members a scheme that has already been concocted, so that they can take it back to their local authorities and say, “This is the scheme we want you to use. We’ve paid for it, we’ve got it in place, and all you’ve got to do is tweak it a little. It’s tried and tested, and we’re prepared to give it to you.” That is not going to happen, is it?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the Secretary of State is a highly political individual who knows exactly what he is doing? He knows that he is going to save money by making this change, and he will give constituents in Portsmouth and Durham the impression that it is nothing to do with him but is down to the nasty councillors who are making the tough decisions.

[Mr Hancock]

The Secretary of State will be making a grave error of judgment if he thinks he is going to get away with that in Portsmouth, because I will be telling people there loud and clear where the responsibility for the change lies. Above all, I am disappointed that a Secretary of State who was groomed in politics in local authorities and who, having led one, has a fundamental understanding of their problems is not being more responsible towards something that I thought he cherished and cared for. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am disappointed, but I can assure him that people in Portsmouth will not have any illusions about where the blame lies.

Portsmouth is a local authority that is making reductions, and many hon. Members’ local authorities are in the same position. People are losing their jobs, and here we are contemplating another burden that will be placed on them with not even an indication of what it will cost to put in place. I know from bitter personal experience, having led a local authority, how much money can be lost when authorities get the wrong advice on a system. Hampshire county council squandered literally tens of millions of pounds over a 20-year period on schemes that failed in one way or another, and I do not want that to happen again.

Where is the inspiration that we ought to be getting from the Minister about how we can resolve the problem easily? Where is the offer to meet the House halfway on this issue? Nowhere. That is disappointing. If there are to be localised benefit systems, I want us to find a way to get a scheme in place in good time, but in proper time. That cannot happen in the time scale before us. If we are to have a change in the system, it must be seen to be fair and properly implementable. The scheme cannot punish those who desperately try to get into work but are on low pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Hancock]

You’re going to buy a house there, aren’t you?

[Mr Jones]

I am hoping to be made a freeman. I have given it enough plugs in these debates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The Bill is being rushed through. If we were considering a root and branch, proper review of local government finance, we could examine my right hon. Friend’s suggestion. I suspect that the Government do not want to do that because it affects a lot of pensioners and they think that pensioners may be more interested in voting Conservative than not. For the same reason, they will not go anywhere near revaluation of domestic properties.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North made a very good point about the comments of the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who seems to think that people can somehow magic up economic development in local areas to increase revenues. That is supposedly the entire basis of the Bill: that councils will be free to create extra demand instantly through economic development. It is a damn sight harder to attract businesses to the north-east than it is to the south-east of England.

There is a problem with who is consulted about the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North made a good point about the mess caused by the system having to be tackled by the charitable sector, local credit unions, which will have to sort people out when they get into debt, local branches of Age Concern, citizens advice bureaux and others. It is only right that they are statutorily consulted on the drawing up of the scheme. If they are not, at the end of the process they will have further burdens because they will have to try to sort out the mess created by the Bill—many are having their grants cut already.

I am sure the Minister, in his feeble way, will refuse to accept the amendments because the Bill is part of a strategy. He is part of that strategy, even if he does not understand it. In effect, the Secretary of State wants to give as many freedoms as possible to local government so that he can wash his hands of it and stand up to the electorate and say, “It’s your local council’s fault.” I hope local councillors of all political persuasions are waking up to what the Secretary of State is up to. He is blaming them for his decisions. Until they wake up to that fact and start protesting—some Liberal Democrats bravely voted against the Bill tonight—we will end up with confusion and mess in local government and blame, and some of the poorest and weakest in our society will be affected.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

Once again, I am concerned about the lack of time, because I would have loved to have had a proper debate on amendments 59 and 60, which go to the heart of the problems we face. The amendments, which were tabled by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), would defer the scheme for a year. Unfortunately, he is not in the Chamber to move the amendments, so it looks like we will not have the chance to pursue the matter. The need to give local authorities more time was one of the things about which Members spoke most eloquently when we debated the previous group of amendments.

It is disappointing that the Minister did not give even a hint that the problems exposed by hon. Members would be given consideration. I have a lot of sympathy for the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who spoke of the problems of “outsourcing” 20,000 people from London. He said that that would have an effect on London’s infrastructure and mean impending problems for receiving authorities. Any authority that has received large numbers of people after population movements will know only too well of the struggle to put in place the infrastructure needed to absorb them. Suggesting that 20,000 people leaving London will be easy is an easy soundbite, but I simply do not believe it. The Government need to think again if they are suggesting that that is a ground for supporting the Bill, because it cannot be right.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) mentioned the cost of appeals and how long they will take. When do they kick in? For how long must people appeal? What would the regime be? Would it be a simple paper exercise or could people appear and give details of their circumstances in front of, say, a group of councillors or officials? We need to know. How will they be resolved?

Why should local authorities take into account the impact of the scheme on the aspects outlined in amendment 66? That is a key question. The hon. Member for Stockton North made the point that we cannot ask local authorities to exclude so many people and not ask them to consider the effects on the poorest groups of working people. If they do not consider that, they would be doing a great disservice to the people. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was in the Chamber just now, but it is sad that he has not heard more of the debate, because the points being made are relevant for his Department.

However, if the Bill goes through without the amendment, it will cause local authorities serious problems. Any local authority worth its salt would want to take the issues I mentioned into consideration and would like to have some flexibility to help the groups affected. Why not say that in the Bill? Is anyone seriously saying that that would be an unreasonable expectation for local people to have? [Interruption.] I am getting a signal that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) might be of a different opinion from me. I happen to think that setting out those matters in the Bill is the right thing to do, and I have yet to hear a coherent argument to suggest that we should not take that into consideration. Once again, that is why, when we vote tonight, I will vote to support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hancock]

I honestly believe that the hon. Gentleman is in the market for a property in Wokingham, or if not Wokingham, Hart.

[Mr Jones]

I could not afford it.

[Mr Hancock]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman could; he is being far too modest.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about income tax and higher income tax payers, I am disappointed that we will not get anywhere near the amendments that I and others tabled on excluding higher income tax payers from the 25% discount. I would hope that the Government would give local authorities the ability totally to restrict people on higher income tax from having the 25% discount.

Once again, I am disappointed that we will not have the opportunity to pursue many of these issues, and I implore the Minister to try to secure the maximum amount of time on Report to allow us properly to discuss the amendments that we have not reached.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Mike Hancock

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Yes. That would have come out had we had proper pre-legislative scrutiny in Committee. It is the same for County Durham. Under the funding settlement introduced last year by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, County Durham lost about £10 million. That will be in the system for ever more now because of the measures in the Bill. Surprisingly, Wokingham council, Surrey council and many others gained from the system. That injustice will be written into the Bill for ever.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

I declare an interest as a member of Portsmouth city council and the executive member for economic development. The hon. Gentleman states that the Bill will greatly damage local authorities. Will he reflect on why, over 13 years, the previous Labour Government, who received similar complaints from local authorities, did little or nothing to assist them by putting local finance on a proper footing?

[Mr Jones]

That is not true. We did. We had a three-year settlement and an increase in the settlement. Through the regional development agency in the north-east, we were putting money into areas such as Country Durham so that they could work with local councils to attract new businesses. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not necessarily agree with everything that the coalition does, but unfortunately, in places such as the north-east, it is taking away the main driver, the RDAs, that local councils could work with to attract more businesses to the north-east.

[Mr Hancock]

My recollection of those years was that money was taken away from the city of Portsmouth, where there was high unemployment and great deprivation, and that the benefits went to places such as County Durham. We felt for a long time that the formula was very unfair and we campaigned to get it changed, but the Labour Government turned a deaf ear to the pleas from authorities such as Portsmouth which were trying to make a rational case for equalisation and a much fairer distribution.

Military Covenant

Debate between Lord Beamish and Mike Hancock

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hancock]

We had the same problem when the last Government refused to accept their duty of care responsibilities. They did that because nobody could clearly define, in rigid legal terms, what a duty of care was.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

We did.

[Mr Hancock]

No, you didn’t. The hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister and before that was on the Defence Committee, will remember from his experiences on the Committee that the Labour Government’s big failure on the duty of care was that they were unable to define clearly what it meant.