Local Housing Allowance and Homelessness

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Order. Let me advise hon. Members on how I will manage the debate. I intend to start calling the Front-Bench spokespersons by 10.28 am. That provides roughly six to seven minutes for each of Back-Bench speaker. If they could stick to that sort of timeframe, I would be grateful; if they exceed it, I will start getting very fidgety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

We now come to the Front Bench spokespersons, who normally get 10 minutes. There is a little in excess of that, but given the number of questions that have been asked of the Minister, could the Opposition Front Bench spokespersons be disciplined and give him adequate time to respond to them?

Department for Education

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend tees me up for my next point. He also raises an important point. It is a political disease to ask schools to do more all the time and very often assume that it can just be done without the additional funding. It is important that the Secretary of State and his ministerial team watch closely that, while other bits of Government suggest that schools do things, there is the funding in place for that and for the core of what they should be delivering. It was after the general election and as a result of that campaign and that pressure on the Government, who were then elected without a majority, that the Secretary of State announced £1.3 billion of additional funding, which was weighted towards next year. This year, schools are in the throes of receiving the £416 million that was announced for this year and will receive £884 million in aggregate across England for next year. But that—the £3 billion figure—does not even backfill those efficiency demands that were asked for before. It is important that we recognise—in fact, the Government have recognised this—that we need 599,000 school places, which is as a result of the increase between 2010 and 2015. We are very concerned about the pressure on school budgets.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have often heard Ministers say in justification of restrictions on school budgets that there are large balances. In my own constituency of West Bromwich West, the cumulative shortfall in schools came to nearly £5 million between 2017-18 and 2018-19. The cumulative reserves of all the schools in Sandwell is £3 million. There is now hard evidence that the balances left in schools in local authorities are no longer adequate to meet the year-by-year shortfalls that are taking place in them.

[Meg Hillier]

I am going to move on, in particular, to the issue of capital funding where sometimes reserves are built up for capital funding purposes.

Looking at what is happening in schools, I really want to give the lie to the argument that more money is going into schools than ever before. The Government say that, and we can look at it in cash terms, but we need to look at it in terms of per-pupil funding. The Department is estimating that over the 2015 spending review period, pupil numbers will rise by 3.9%, or 174,000, for primary school pupils and 10.3%, or 284,000 for secondary school pupils. Therefore, funding per pupil will, on average, rise only from £5,447 in 2015-16 to £5,519 in 2019-20—next year. That is a real-terms reduction once inflation is taken into account.

Recognition of Fibromyalgia as a Disability

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I make it quite clear that I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.30 am. A lot of Back Benchers want to contribute—I am told 10—so I suggest an advisory time limit of four minutes at this stage. However, I will probably drop that to a hard time limit if the earlier speakers take up an excessive amount of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Andrea Jenkyns, who has a four-minute advisory time limit. After her speech I will impose a three-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Order. I will now impose a three-minute time limit.

Closure of Sovereign House, Newport

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am grateful to her for that intervention.

We are not looking for a reversal of Government policy if the change makes sense, but they have to prove that it makes sense not just in economic terms but in human terms. The hub will cause disruption, as I believe it will contain many more than 1,000 people. It will be a man-made hub. There are natural hubs in various parts of the country. Those in Blackpool and Newcastle, for example, have grown up due to certain unique circumstances.

This is a question of lumping together offices that have worked magnificently in Merthyr, Cardiff and Caerphilly, because of someone’s administrative theory that hubs are better. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who has been very courteous and open about this. I hope that he will keep an open mind and say that the Government will look at this and balance the full costs—not just those that show up on a balance sheet, but the heartbreaking human problems that are likely to arise, particularly for the women who are now employed in south Wales and are likely to be transferred to the Treforest hub.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, may I point out, for transcription purposes, that the Chair is Adrian Bailey, not Sir Roger Gale? I have been called many things in my time, but never Sir Roger Gale.

Universal Credit Work Allowance

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

In percentage terms, it is now back to 2008-09 levels. These reforms are key to that. Having an open blank chequebook is simply not an approach that we or hard-working taxpayers would take.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Everybody understands the rationale for having a welfare system that incentivises people to work, but I would like the Minister to explain how these proposals, which mean that people have to work longer hours for the same money, will achieve that purpose.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I will now try to make some progress so that I can set that out.

The old approach of taking money from people’s wages and recycling it back to them in handouts was not transforming lives, it was trapping them. Why? It did not provide the right incentives or support for people to get on and realise their ambitions. Our central approach is therefore about ensuring people are better off in work and better off working more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I make it clear that I welcome the principles behind universal credit. Any scheme that simplifies the welfare system, provides additional support to those who have to use it and incentivises people into work, which ultimately is the best route out of poverty, has to be encouraged. However, the problem is, because of the Chancellor’s failure to reach his deficit reduction target, the original totally laudable objectives of universal credit have been subsumed by the Government’s need to cut the cost of it.

I applaud those Conservative Members who lobbied hard for the removal of the Chancellor’s proposals to cut working tax credit. They recognised the false logic of what he was doing. Indeed, in the autumn statement he said:

“I have had representations that the changes to tax credits should be phased in…I hear and understand them... the simplest thing to do is not to phase these changes in, but to avoid them altogether. Tax credits are being phased out anyway as we introduce universal credit.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1360.]

The overwhelming impression at that point was that his policy had been abandoned. But it has not been abandoned. He did not mention that it was effectively being rebranded and recycled through the universal credit system. I cannot understand why those people who lobbied him beforehand on working tax credits seem to be accepting those same proposals being recycled through universal credit.

The Chancellor was the one involved in smoke and mirrors. He compounded that with another trick. He suddenly found, for the funding of that, £27 billion that seemed to be in the accounts in the autumn that had not been there in July. That does credit to that well-known comedian and illusionist, the late Tommy Cooper—the Chancellor found it “Just like that.” All I can hope is that, for the state of the nation’s finances, the £27 billion is not as illusory as the benefits that the Chancellor claimed would accrue to those who move on to universal credit. Not only do I object to the way the proposals were introduced in the House, but the underlying philosophy is a contradiction of everything the Government have said about making work pay, taking people off benefits and incentivising them into work. The theme has been well developed by other contributors to this debate, so I will not take it further.

In the context of the cuts to inheritance tax, the universal credit system in effect penalises those who are working hard to produce the goods and services and pay the taxes that will reduce the deficit and benefit those who inherit capital, who will be better off. The policy is incoherent and contradictory, sends the wrong message and ultimately will be self-defeating.

Jobs and Work

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In view of the shortness of time, I shall confine my remarks to two aspects of the Queen’s Speech. The first relates to the commitment to increase the number of apprenticeship places to 2 million, and the second relates to pub companies. Both issues have attracted considerable interest from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, as the Secretary of State has acknowledged.

I welcome the commitment to having 2 million apprenticeship places, but if the Government are to avoid the accusation that they are not matching their rhetoric with detailed policies to deliver those places, we shall need more information on this proposal and on the changes to other policies that will be necessary. In regard to the Government’s phraseology, I must point out that “apprenticeship places” are not necessarily the same as apprenticeship placements. If we look at the records for the past full year, we can see that the number of apprenticeship placements that were actually taken up fell to 510,000. Raising the total number of apprentices to 2 million will therefore require a considerable change in policy. Perhaps more seriously, there has been a drop in the number of apprentices taking placements in the key sectors at which the Government are aiming this policy—namely, construction and manufacturing. If we are to have a skills programme based on apprentices that is designed to address the acute skills shortage—which will be strategically important in delivering economic growth—we will need a far more comprehensive list of policy proposals.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

I am sorry; I will not give way owing to the shortness of time.

A factor in getting more people to take up apprenticeships in key areas is the culture that exists in schools. We need better careers advice, as the City and Guilds Group pointed out following the Queen’s Speech. It commented on the lamentable level of careers advice in schools, which was ensuring that awareness of apprenticeships in key areas remained low compared with the awareness—and, indeed, promotion—of more academic qualifications for young people. I cannot go into greater detail at the moment, but we need a change in the culture in our schools if we are to deliver a pipeline of young people into apprenticeship places in order to deliver on a forward-looking economic agenda for the Government. If we were to revert to a numbers-driven target for apprenticeship places, there would be a real danger of boosting numbers without taking into account quality or relevance. That would simply reinforce the negative perception of apprenticeships, creating a further barrier to recruitment.

My other point relates to pub companies. The Secretary of State has rightly recognised the work of the Select Committee on this issue, and I pay tribute to him for reversing the position of the previous Minister responsible for pub companies, who was prepared to commit only to a voluntary approach. The Secretary of State has recognised that the industry has dragged its feet and been obstructive, and he is now introducing legislation.

The proposals for a statutory code and an independent regulator are welcome, although we shall no doubt want to debate them in greater detail later. However, the failure to commit to introducing a mandatory free-of-tie option will leave publicans feeling let down and disillusioned. It was ironic that when the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister held their meeting in a pub, we were not quite sure whether a pub company owned that pub. They will have had to be quite selective about the pub they visited in order to get the welcome that they wanted.

The fact is that the overwhelming number of tenants support a free-of-tie option and a mandatory rent review. According to the Government’s consultation, 92% of tenants saw the beer tie as their biggest challenge. My conversations with tenants on this issue and the proposals in the Government response indicate that one of the key problems is the deep suspicion of the rent revaluations based on Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors guidelines; their experience has not given them any confidence that this will significantly address issues that have been so long debated.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to review things after two years. Although I am not in a position to bind the future Select Committee, I strongly recommend that it carry out further inquiries in this area, with a view to raising the issue again with future Governments.

Housing Benefit

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The justifications for this do not stack up. People are not moving but they are not paying either. More and more people are falling into arrears. As many as 50% of them, hit by the tax, are now behind with their rent. The loss to local authorities and housing associations is already running into tens of millions of pounds, and the cost of evicting all those who have not paid their rent and then dealing with the resulting homelessness could cost many times more. While the Government preside over the lowest level of new home building since the 1920s, their answer is to make the housing crisis even worse by making it harder for housing providers to meet local housing need by blowing another hole in their budget and destabilising their fragile finances further.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the research done by the centre for housing policy at York university on the lack of any financial benefits accrued from this policy. Does she agree that it is almost unheard of for such a policy to inflict so much misery on some of the most vulnerable in our society for so little financial benefit to the rest of the country?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Indeed, analysis by York university’s centre for housing policy suggests that this will cost £160 million, because the Department for Work Pensions has underestimated the impact on the housing benefit bill of people moving to the private rented sector.

According to the National Housing Federation, 100,000 disabled people—some of whom we have already heard about—live in properties specially adapted for their disability, but the average grant issued by local authorities for adaptations to homes stands at £6,000. The total cost of doing the adaptations all over again could run into tens of millions of pounds.

Youth Unemployment

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are having a debate about the economic situation and its impacts on young people. My constituency has felt the chill winds disproportionately, as has the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne). My local authority, Sandwell, has the third highest rate of youth unemployment in the country. We also endured high youth unemployment under the previous Conservative Government. The Labour Government made substantial inroads, but the problem is now back with a vengeance.

On the general economic situation, some of the Government’s measures are aggravating the problems, which are a by-product of our poor economic performance. The higher education proposals, for instance, will disincentivise young people from low-income, low-aspiration backgrounds from entering higher education, and there is a great danger that young people from areas such as mine will look to take an alternative route, such as vocational training and apprenticeships. That is not in itself bad, and it may well be of great benefit to the economy, but the cohort of young people who previously would have gone into apprenticeships and training will find that they have nowhere to go. That is already being reflected in the increase in the number of NEETs in the country as a whole, and certainly in my area.

The Government trumpet the progress made on apprenticeships, and I welcome apprenticeships, as they are potentially of enormous benefit. However, the fact remains that the greatest increase in apprenticeships, as of this moment, is in the post-24 age group, and there is a suspicion that this is just a rebadging of the old Train to Gain scheme. In addition, the headline figures do not take into account the number of short apprenticeships—these are not the two or three-year courses that we commonly think of as apprenticeships which will enable people to go into work. My Committee will be undertaking an inquiry into this in the new year, and I hope to be able to drill down to find out exactly what the situation is.

[Mr Hayes]

I am sorry to have to intervene, because I know that time is short. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that I take his work seriously in that regard and that we, like him, are determined to see apprenticeships of the right quality and to see bureaucracy cut so that more firms can be involved. He is right to say that apprenticeships matter, but the brand matters too and we are as committed to quality as he is.

[Mr Bailey]

I welcome the words of the Minister, whose commitment to this cause I would not doubt for a moment. I am sure that we will have an extremely enlightening inquiry in the new year.

I shall highlight two measures that would cost the Government very little but would help. First, they should continue the funding for the graduate internship scheme—these are funded internships for graduates in small businesses. This has proved to be of enormous benefit to small businesses and to the graduates, and the total cost to the Government would be about £8 million. Given that this is a win-win situation—it helps the small businesses and graduates, and the cost would be lower than that of keeping them unemployed—I would have thought it was an obvious thing to continue. Also it sends messages to young people thinking of going to university that there is career progression after graduation. In the context of the highest level of graduate unemployment since 1992, that is a very important thing for the Government to do.

Secondly, small businesses are crying out for a financial incentive to encourage them to employ young people. The Government have introduced national insurance breaks. The existing scheme has not been very successful, and there is £850 million allocated for it. It should be broadened to existing businesses or, as the CBI says, a possible cash payment should be established for companies that take on young people and give them meaningful employment. These are not the words of tax-and-spend merchants; they are coming from the Federation of Small Businesses and the CBI—the authentic voice of the business community. If the Government do that, without great cost, it could make an impact on youth unemployment.