Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

The Treasury supports electricity market reform, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows. He will also know that we have also laid out our support for energy-intensive industries. I have no doubt that he will be able to direct questions about programming to the Leader of the House.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

10. What steps he plans to take to ensure taxes owed are duly collected.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

HMRC has managed both to reduce debt levels and to help businesses through difficult economic times. It offers help to businesses that are in genuine difficulty, including through time-to-pay arrangements. Where appropriate, it is taking faster and firmer action against those who fail to engage with it. The amount of customer debt owed to the Exchequer decreased by about £2.4 billion between February 2011 and February 2012.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and I must congratulate the Government on their plans to close loopholes, particularly for the super-rich, including through the gift aid system. Will he ensure that the Government do not weaken their resolve in that regard, and ensure that gift aid genuinely goes to support charitable activities?

[Mr Hoban]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that support. He is absolutely right. I think that it is unfair that reliefs can be used without limit to reduce tax liabilities so that some taxpayers with very high incomes have very low tax rates, even below the basic rate.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I, too, have put my name to the new clause. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the anomaly in areas such as mine where there is a planning restriction on occupancy where static caravans exist, making them ideal for people who want to use them for holiday homes? Under the measure, static bricks-and-mortar constructions will not be subject to the same level of taxation, so the measure will benefit those who can afford to have a second home and will therefore have an impact on the availability of housing for local people, whereas the presence of static caravans does not impact on the local community in the same way.

[Mr Stuart]

My hon. Friend is quite right. That is why the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has a fair point. Some people will be able to afford permanent housing, thereby further pressurising the housing market in areas where such housing is limited. Static caravan parks have been a perfect arrangement, because they allow both the local community and people from outside to benefit. They have meant that the local worker who is looking for a house—often someone who works at a caravan park—has been better able to find a house.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Henderson]

I can only agree with that:

I accept that there is an argument for trying to address the current situation whereby some shops sell hot pies without charging VAT but others, such as my local chippy, have to charge VAT on the hot pies that they sell. However, the Government’s proposal is not an answer. Nor, sadly, is the Opposition’s new clause 1, which is why I cannot support it. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) will withdraw it, and that he and his colleagues will support new clause 5, which I believe would achieve the Government’s objectives while protecting businesses such as that run by my friend.

[Andrew George]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman will be supporting new clause 5. As he knows, no one eats fish and chips cold, but a lot of people eat a good pasty cold. In fact, they are delicious cold. A lot of people go to the many pasty bakers in my constituency, buy pasties hot, take them home, put them in the freezer and use them later. The Government’s proposal clearly does not address that type of consumption.

[Gordon Henderson]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the proposal is nonsense, but I want to move on to caravans, which are important to my constituency.

The Government’s proposal is allegedly to iron out an anomaly by ensuring that the sales of holiday and leisure caravans are taxed consistently at the standard rate, but once again, it simply creates another anomaly, which I will describe in a moment.

The proposal must be one of the most ill-conceived and badly thought out of all the proposals in this year’s Budget. We have been told consistently that the Government want to help coastal communities, which have become increasingly deprived over the past couple of decades, and which often have a higher level of unemployment than other areas. The Isle of Sheppey in my constituency is one such coastal community. As I have mentioned in the House on a number of occasions, unemployment on the Isle of Sheppey is among the highest in the south-east of England. The island took another knock earlier this year when Thamesteel went into administration. To give them their due, both the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Communities and Local Government have been working hard with my local authorities to find ways of mitigating the closure of Thamesteel by encouraging the growth of other industries, but one of those industries is the tourism and holiday industry, which has declined over the past 40 years, since its ’60s heyday.

In recent months, we have seen the green shoots of recovery in our local tourism scene, boosted in part by the decision of Swale borough council to allow many caravan parks to extend their operating periods from eight to 10 months of the year. That decision gave caravan park owners a real incentive to invest in and upgrade their parks, but success in the caravan holiday business is reliant on a good mix of park-owned caravans for hire and pitches for owner-occupiers. The sale of holiday caravans will be very badly hit if they incur VAT at 20%, and, in turn, the park-owned business will be hit because operators will have to increase their hire charges to balance their books, driving away even more much-needed visitors.

Let us not forget that those visitors are not wealthy people; in the main, they are working class people who strive for a better life by having their own holiday home here in Britain. In my view, the policy has been dreamt up by somebody who has never holidayed in a caravan park, has no idea of how the holiday park business operates and has no conception of the disastrous effect the policy will have on many coastal and rural communities.

It is deeply ironic that the Government are striving to give coastal communities help up the ladder of prosperity while using their feet to kick away the very same ladder with this ill-thought-out proposal. I urge hon. Members to support new clause 6.

Amendment of the Law

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a great pity that the Chancellor is not here; I would love to look him in the eye and ask whether we are genuinely all in it together. He and I represent Cheshire constituencies, but I do not think that his position is quite the same as that of the good folk living in the Westminster ward—one of the country’s most disadvantaged—in my constituency. I would really like him to say to those people that he was in the same boat as them. That is manifestly not the case. The media have picked up on that and realised that the story that we were told yesterday is full of half-truths that present the facts differently from what is really happening on the ground.

In these tough times, what the Tory-led Government are doing tells us everything that we need to know about them. It proves that the Chancellor and Prime Minister are totally out of touch with what life is like for people in this country. At a time when bills are going up for families on middle and low incomes, the Chancellor has added to them all. Fuel duty is going up, even though petrol prices are at a record high.

I am glad that some Liberal Democrats are in the Chamber. In the west country, there is already a blog about the new pasty tax. The Lib Dems should watch out; that is not the only thing that they are under attack for. They will be the real losers on the issue of regional pay, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). Areas where Liberal Democrats have traditionally been strong would duck out compared with places such as my county of Cheshire, which is also the Chancellor’s, or Oxfordshire, which is where the Prime Minister is. The Liberal Democrats have a real problem when they start looking at regional pay.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

There is a debate to be had on regional pay, and my position is well known. On the sublimely fundamental and seriously important issue of pasty taxes in Cornwall, let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will be fighting them on the beaches.

[Andrew Miller]

So when I go to Ann’s pasty shop, I’ll be all right, will I?

The Lib Dems are supposed to be strong on matters related to solar power. This morning, the chief executive of the Solar Trade Association said:

“We cannot understand why solar has been singled out for rough treatment on Capital Allowances when it is a popular technology which will soon reach grid parity and provide businesses with a real alternative to dependence on fossil fuels.”

Again, the Liberals have bought into something that is totally contrary to their own policy position. At the same time, the Budget gave a tax cut to the very richest people in our country, with just 14,000 people earning £1 million or more getting a Budget boost of over £40,000 each year. No wonder the Centre for Policy Studies, which is advised by the Minister for Universities and Science, among others, says that the Budget amounted to small-scale tinkering, regional handouts, and a rearranging of the deckchairs. To be fair to the Minister, there is a lot that I do not agree with in the CPS’s press release. Nevertheless, the Government have chosen to cut taxes for 300,000 people earning over £150,000—the richest 1%. How can that be the priority now?

The Chancellor looked quite smug when he sat down yesterday, but I bet he did not feel so smug when he read today’s papers.

Tax Avoidance (Public Servants)

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman might not have caught up with this, but a great deal of information has already been released on this issue under the Freedom of Information Act, which is precisely how it has come to my attention and that of others. As I said, my role in such matters is to sign off the salary arrangements and ensure that they are appropriate, given the level of salary in place. As I said at Treasury questions a few days back, in the 83 cases in which I have been involved where a previous post holder has been in place, I have reduced the salary substantially in 45 cases and frozen it in a further 23.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Although my right hon. Friend has already covered this matter to an extent, will he tell me what effective measures he inherited, and if they were inadequate, what action he took to put them right?

[Danny Alexander]

As I have said, the terms and conditions of appointments are negotiated by the appointing Department. I have a responsibility to control the salary levels in these sorts of cases, which I discharged in this case. I was not aware of any particular tax benefit to the individual involved. The arrangements in relation to tax avoidance and tax evasion that we inherited were not robust enough, and that is why we have taken significant steps to tighten them up, to ensure that we get the maximum amount of money from people across society. As several hon. Members have said, that is particularly important, given the difficult economic circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

It is worth pointing out what Standard & Poor said recently when it confirmed our triple A credit rating. It said that if we abandoned our fiscal plans—if we borrowed more—that credit rating would be at risk. The best way of keeping our triple A rating is by sticking to the plan.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

8. What plans he has to bring forward fiscal measures to support green growth.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)]

The Government are committed to supporting green growth, as is demonstrated by the green investment bank, which was allocated £3 billion in the spending review, by the carbon price floor, which is designed to drive investment in low-carbon power generation, and by the green deal, which supports households and businesses in increasing their energy efficiency at no up-front cost.

[Andrew George]

May I, too, extend a very warm welcome to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary?

In the Budget, the Chancellor pledged to consider incentives to encourage take-up of the green deal. One idea is to have a stamp duty particularly for the least energy-efficient homes. How does my hon. Friend intend to advance those incentives and is she prepared to meet me and industry representatives to find a way forward with the Chancellor’s incentives?

[Miss Smith]

May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend and others for their kind words regarding my role?

As I have mentioned, the green deal is a key part of supporting such green growth and the Government are taking a range of actions to help people to gain control of their household energy bills. I certainly note my hon. Friend’s suggestion and I am happy to meet him to discuss options within public finance constraints.

Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

Why does the hon. Gentleman not want to help the whole of Scotland? Why does he want to help only a tiny bit of Scotland?

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Ms Eagle]

I must continue.

The Chancellor should use the Budget to look again at the annual fuel duty rise due in April, because of the price of fuel in world markets. At this time of instability and change in the middle east and north Africa, the Chancellor has to work with other Finance Ministers to try to keep oil supplies flowing and get world oil prices down.

At the weekend, the Deputy Prime Minister claimed that the Liberal Democrats were

“in the middle, for the middle”.

I say to them this afternoon: prove it. If they really cared about the struggles facing hard-pressed families in Britain, they would join us in the Lobby and vote for our motion. I for one look forward to seeing them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“notes that the Government inherited the largest deficit in UK peacetime history and that the previous Government and current Opposition has no credible plan to deal with the deficit; further notes that this Government has already taken steps to support families and that those on low and middle incomes will benefit from April 2011 from a £1,000 increase in the income tax personal allowance, above-indexation increases in Child Tax Credit and that pensioners will receive new ‘triple-lock’ increases in the basic State Pension; further notes the significant impact on fuel prices in the UK of the dramatic increase in the world oil price to over $100 per barrel and the impact on households and business; notes that the previous Government increased fuel duty no less than four times between December 2008 and April 2010, proposed introducing a fuel escalator from 2011 and planned for a further series of six consecutive fuel duty rises up to 2014; nonetheless recognises the significant impact of high fuel prices on motorists, hauliers and businesses and that the Government is considering a fair fuel stabiliser that could support motorists and businesses when oil prices are high; and in addition notes that a reduction in VAT on fuel would be deemed illegal under EU law and that the Chancellor will update the House on this issue at the time of the Budget.”.

There we have it, from the party that came into government with fuel duty at 36.86p a litre and left it at 57.19p a litre—a whole load of moaning and insubstantial comments about what it cannot do to help motorists. The Government, unlike the Opposition, understand the seriousness of the issues that we are debating today. We know that the increase in the world’s oil price, as it feeds though to all other goods, is leaving many people out of pocket, and that families up and down the country are finding it hard to make ends meet. The Opposition clearly have no grasp of the issues at hand, as we have just heard; to them, it is just politics. They are simply not interested in how people on the ground actually feel about things, and they have no credible policies to back up their claims.

[Andrew George]

The Labour motion mentions

“securing the appropriate EU derogation”.

I hoped that the shadow Minister would give way to me, so that I could ask her what European derogation that is, and how many times in the past 13 years Labour attempted to seek it. Has the Economic Secretary seen anything in the records of the Treasury suggesting an answer to those questions?

[Justine Greening]

Officials are not aware that the last Government sought any derogation in relation to VAT on fuel at any point in the past 13 years. In fact, if the shadow Chancellor had gone off to Europe with his influencing strategy, which was clearly so unsuccessful when he was running for the leadership, I doubt that there would have been any prospect whatever of his making any progress. The Labour party seems to have about as much understanding today of the economic situation that it has left our country in as it did of the situation two years ago, when it ran this country into the deepest and longest recession in living memory.

Fuel Prices

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend has provided an appropriate example of a business that depends heavily on road haulage to get its product to market, and I am sure that it would be a particular beneficiary if the fuel duty stabiliser or a rural rebate were introduced.

Domestic fuel is a subject that appears in my mountains of correspondence. One or two people have expressed concern about the possible operation of a cartel, particularly in the north of England—Yorkshire, the Humber and the north-east—in domestic heating oil prices. I welcome the fact that the Government have grasped that issue and are looking into it through, I understand, Ofgem, but I hope that one of the purposes of this debate is to push at what might be an open door, to press the Government to, at the very least, examine both where we are and how we got into this difficulty. My constituents have expressed their concerns in fairly strong terms. One stated:

“I like many other people in this country am fed up with having to pay over the odds in tax for what is to many people an absolute necessity rather than a luxury”.

Another wrote:

“I am the owner of a small business and am extremely concerned about increases in fuel duty, which have hit the small business sector the hardest.”

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I have written to the Economic Secretary about the pilots that were announced last October for the proposed rural area rebate. EU Finance Ministers’ approval will be required before we can even get the small pilots going on the Isles of Scilly and in Scotland, which will take some time. Does she agree that it is really important that the scheme is rolled out as quickly as possibly, and that the Government need to go a stage further and indicate which rural areas they intend to cover?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am taken by my hon. Friend’s arguments, but we learned a lot from the smash-and-crash approach of the Labour Government, who announced that they were introducing a 1p increase due to the state of the economy and the fact that the price of oil was $149 a barrel. The Prime Minister’s response to my question showed a responsible attitude. We need a responsible, well-thought-out approach in the Budget. Then we can have pilot schemes in North Yorkshire, Cornwall, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

Several hon. Friends have made comments that I hope the Government will take up, not least of which is the fact that some small independent retailers who try to offer fuel in rural areas are being priced out of the market because suppliers 20 miles away undercut them substantially. All those issues are worthy of further investigation.

[Andrew George]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion.

I believe that we are pushing at an open door, and I take this opportunity to press the Government to change. Doing nothing is not a realistic option. The price of fuel is one of the most pressing issues facing those in rural communities. The small businesses that drive our economy, including the 6,000 small businesses in my constituency alone, are suffering particularly. Fuel forms a large part of individual household income, and it is extremely inflationary in pushing up the price of everyday items. UK hauliers already pay as much as £12,000 a year more than some EU competitors. As I have said, we now have the highest duty on diesel, yet our diesel is the most cheaply produced.

I make a plea to the Minister to stop the 1p increase on 1 April, consider seriously a fuel stabiliser and a remote rural rebate or discount, which would have a favourable impact on many rural constituencies represented in this Chamber, and address the discrimination against rural dwellers endemic in current pump prices. The differential between diesel and petrol is now unacceptable and must be addressed. I urge the Minister to respond in the most favourable terms possible for the good of families, farmers, the elderly, those with young children, small businesses and all of us in rural areas who depend on cars.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate. The issue is important for those of us who represent rural communities, as the large turnout of hon. Members from the two coalition parties and Northern Ireland indicates. However, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) casts a lonely figure on the Labour Benches. I also note that no Scottish National party Members have turned up, which is a scandal considering all the things the SNP is saying in the Scottish press. It shows that the SNP’s priorities are completely wrong.

Representing a sparsely populated rural constituency as I do, I am only too aware of the impact of high fuel prices on people and businesses. I represent many islands of the Inner Hebrides. To give some examples, the price of fuel on larger islands such as Mull and Islay is typically 15p a litre higher than at a city centre supermarket, and on the smaller islands such as Coll and Colonsay, the price is usually about 30p a litre higher. That obviously has a great impact on people’s living standards and on anyone on the islands who is trying to run a business.

I was therefore delighted when the Government announced their intention of pursuing a pilot scheme under which a 5p per litre fuel duty discount would be introduced on many islands, including the Inner Hebrides. I know that the Government need EU permission to go ahead with the scheme, that it takes time to get such projects through the EU and that it is important that the Government get their proposals right, but I urge them to take the proposals through the EU as quickly as humanly possible. I hope that there will be no objections in the EU. Several other countries—Greece, Portugal and France—have similar discount schemes on their islands, so I hope there would be no obstacle to our island pilot scheme. However, as other hon. Members have said, it is not just on the islands that the price of fuel is high. It is the same in many rural parts of the country.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent case. My constituency, like his, would benefit from the proposed rural rebate, especially the Isles of Scilly, which have just 2,000 people. He is absolutely right that it should be a fait accompli at the EU level, because the principle is already established. The difference in price on the Isles of Scilly is much the same as in his constituency. Does he not agree that we must press Ministers not only to get the proposals through the EU as quickly as possible but to indicate where the pilot will be rolled out beyond the small areas that will benefit in the first phase?

[Mr Reid]

I agree. Some 6,000 of my 60,000-odd constituents will benefit from the pilot scheme, but I hope that it can be rolled out later to other rural parts of the country. However, the most important thing is to establish the principle. My hon. Friend will share my frustration that throughout the last Parliament, we proposed such a scheme every year in the Finance Bill and, although we often heard noises of sympathy from Labour Ministers, no action whatever was taken. It is important to establish the principle, which is why the pilot scheme is so important. Once the principle is established and is shown to work—Labour Ministers always said that it could not, in practice—we can prove it will work. It is important to establish the pilot and prove that it works. Then we can roll it out to other rural parts of the country.

On the coming Budget, the previous Government introduced the fuel duty escalator, which increased fuel duty by 1p over and above the rate of inflation. According to my calculations, that means that the tax on fuel would have increased by 4p in the coming Budget if Labour were still in power. Thankfully, they are not. I think we have established that any argument that fuel duty must increase for environmental reasons no longer stacks up. Market forces have already driven the price of fuel very high, which deters people from using their cars. Any further fuel duty increase would not help the environment; it would simply harm the rural economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

At least I am not the pantomime dame. The measures we are taking are dealing with the economic inheritance that the previous Government, of whom the hon. Gentleman was a Minister, left this country. As we go into the new year, we are one of the few European economies not facing concerns about their sovereign debt issues, and we are providing a platform for economic growth next year. That is why people are looking at the UK and saying, “There is a country that is dealing with the problems.”

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T3. Treasury Ministers rightly assert that the vulnerable should be protected and that those with broader shoulders should bear the greatest burden. With that in mind, will Ministers report on the effectiveness of the initiative announced in September to bear down on the estimated £42 billion of tax that the wealthy do not pay each year?

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight this issue. We announced that £900 million would be spent over the spending review period on reducing the tax gap, and that will begin in 2011. Earlier this month, we announced plans to tackle tax avoidance with several detailed proposals on issues that had been left for many years. We have taken a firm line on those and we hope that that will raise considerable revenue from people who should be paying more in tax.

Crown Currency Exchange

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt]

I hope so. There have been some arrests today, and I think that Devon and Cornwall police’s serious crime squad is taking part. I hope that that prefaces some action by the FSA.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Arrests have been made, including of one of my constituents. Indeed, the company’s offices were based in Hayle in my former constituency. The case has given rise to enormous concern, and although it is not on the same scale as sub-prime casino banking it has left many people in serious circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend will advance her case, because this situation clearly needs to be regulated in future.

[Tessa Munt]

One might just need to get rid of “registered”, because it seems to have absolutely no meaning and to afford no protection—nothing.

Vulnerable People (CSR)

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I am particularly pleased to have secured an opportunity to debate the effects of the comprehensive spending review on vulnerable people.

Some of the issues that I raise may well be raised in the more specific debate on housing benefit in the main Chamber this afternoon. For the purpose of this debate, I want to define the terms to which I have referred. The debate is, in effect, about the impact on vulnerable people of not just the CSR, but the Budget and the various departmental announcements that have been made and which underpin the context in which the CSR was announced on 20 October.

By “vulnerable people”, I mean not just those in need of specific state support who are unable, through a learning disability or other forms of disability, to manage alone, but those who may become vulnerable or find themselves in significant need, housing stress, homelessness, hardship or debt. The effects to which I refer cover a wide range of policy areas. Of course, I do not intend to cover all areas of government, although vulnerable people are likely to be affected by a wide range of policies, but I am keen to cover access to housing and housing benefit; welfare, including the support and benefits for unemployed and disabled people; care for adults and children; and public transport and access to it.

By way of background, it is worth noting that no self-respecting political party would have undertaken, in the lead-up to the last general election, the kind of measures that have been proposed since, because of how our political system works. However, we all knew as we went into the general election that Britain had the largest deficit in peacetime history, the largest structural deficit in Europe, that £120 million a day was needed to service the interest on that debt and that £1 in every £4 that the Government spent was borrowed money. We entirely understand the need to put right the public finances, which is the background to this debate and the CSR.

I would like to acknowledge a number of achievements. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, it is worth acknowledging that, despite the rather austere circumstances, we have secured outcomes from coalition agreements of which I believe the coalition can be proud. I am referring to the policies of taking the lowest earners out of tax altogether, which I know will be ratcheted up over the coming years until the figure is £10,000 before tax applies; restoring the earnings link for pensioners and a guarantee of uprating with a triple lock; the pupil premium and the early years premium, particularly for vulnerable children; the pay protection for low-paid public sector workers; capital gains tax for top earners; and the banking levy to help to pay for many of these measures. I was also pleased to hear of the Treasury’s intention to make a concerted effort to tackle tax evasion and fraud, which is essential to ensure that we get the balance right in where the finances are found.

Also by way of background, it is worth acknowledging that the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated a theme throughout the CSR statement on 20 October—one that I entirely applaud. For example, he said at column 951 that

“those with the broadest shoulders will bear the greatest burden”.

Equally, he said at column 956:

“A civilised country… protects the most vulnerable”.—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 951-56.]

Protecting vulnerable people was a theme repeated throughout the statement, and I loudly applaud both those objectives.

The purpose of this debate is to ask whether that laudable and agreeable objective is achieved by the combined efforts of Government policy. If not, will the Government review their policies and make the necessary adjustments to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders do bear the greatest burden and that the vulnerable genuinely are protected? I doubt that, in the tribal warfare that often masquerades as debate in the House, we will do anything other than divide on pre-determined lines on the assessment behind those questions, but we can call on other commentators to contribute to the debate.

As we know, the Institute for Fiscal Studies disagreed with the Treasury’s claim. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place and I look forward to her response to the debate. I am sure that she will respond to the IFS assessment of the combined impacts of the CSR and the Budget. The IFS disagreed that the overall package of tax and benefit changes was progressive. Carl Emmerson, acting director of the IFS, said that

“our analysis continues to show that, with the notable exception of the richest 2%, the tax and benefit components of the fiscal consolidation are, overall, being implemented in a regressive way.”

The IFS emphasised the problems involved in estimating the distributional effect of changes in public services. It welcomed the Treasury’s attempts to model those, but noted its finding that the public service spending cuts announced in the spending review were regressive.

Equally, the Financial Times described the spending review as

“a gamble given the continuing weakness of the recovery”,

but supported the decision to cut spending, provided that growth in the economy returns. The Times said that, broadly speaking, the priorities chosen by the Chancellor were correct but that the changes could be “very painful” for the poor. The Guardian also commented that the spending review was “a major gamble”—I shall return to that concept—at a time when economic conditions have deteriorated. It said that, furthermore, the cuts would be focused on the sick, the poor and working parents. The IFS commented that the cuts in overall public spending over the spending review period would be the deepest in real terms since the second world war and that cuts in spending on services would be the largest since the four years beginning in 1975.

As I said, housing benefit measures will be debated this afternoon in the main Chamber. Two primary changes are being made next year. The first is the capping of local housing allowance for each property, which will be implemented in April 2011. That has been a primary focus of political debate and comment in the House and elsewhere, although it will impinge on a relatively small number of properties and households. For example, just 139, all in London, receive in excess of £50,000 per annum; 11,233 are in receipt of more than £20,000 per annum, some 10,000 of which are in the London area. In Cornwall, which, as hon. Members might expect, I will discuss in a moment, 40 households are in that category. The measure would save £65 million.

What concerns me most particularly is the impact on rural areas such as Cornwall—but not just Cornwall. A focus of my comments will be the reduction in the percentile market rates used to calculate local housing allowance rates from the 50th percentile—the median—to the 30th percentile of local rents, which will be implemented in October next year. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that that will secure annual savings of £425 million.

The nature of the debate in the media gives the impression that housing benefit is paid mainly to people who are unemployed. Because of the “tabloidisation” of the debate, the implication is that the work-shy are in receipt of housing benefit and need to be encouraged by stick rather than carrot to find work. In fact, only one housing benefit claimant in eight is unemployed. I should add that, in future, the effect of the uprating of housing benefit according to the consumer prices index rather than local rents will place further significant downward pressure on housing benefit and may well result in shortfalls between rent and the housing allowance that people are given.

The Secretary of State has made it clear that the intention of the Department is to use housing benefit to force rents down, and I can understand the logic behind that, which is that housing benefit, because of the sheer volume of those who receive it, has an inflationary impact on the rental market, particularly the private rented market. However, not all areas will necessarily respond uniformly. The changes may well work in some rental market areas, but I am not convinced that they will work in them all.

For example, according to figures published in The Guardian on 30 October, outside London, Cornwall will be the hardest hit by the changes. Indeed, 11,180 households —one third of all households with employed people in receipt of the benefit—will be affected. There will be a significant shortfall between their housing benefit and the rent that they will pay.

In Cornwall, there is a significant shortfall right now between the median rent as assessed previously by the rent office—now by the Valuation Office Agency—and what housing benefit should be in Cornwall, and therefore between the housing allowance that will be available to tenants and what is available in the market on a week-by-week basis. It is very rare indeed that a new property comes on to the market that is actually within—either on or below—the median rent as assessed by the valuation office. Most rents fall above it, and therefore the shortfall has to be made up by the tenant, who may be on a low income or on benefits.

In Cornwall, 57,109 people claim housing benefit; 12,972 are of working age but not working—they include those in receipt of income support or jobseeker’s allowance—and about 12,000 are of working age and are working, or are on a non-passported benefit or employment support allowance, previously incapacity benefit, or contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance. A similar picture is painted by one of the larger social landlords. Penwith Housing Association tells me that about 60% of its tenants are on housing benefit. More than half of those who are of working age are indeed working, and are in receipt of either partial or full housing benefit support to cover their rent.

Yesterday, Cornwall council published some information on the likely impacts on the local community of the various changes to housing benefit. Its assessment is that the reduction of the market rental from the 50th percentile—the median—to the 30th percentile is likely to have the biggest impact. It says that 10,500 households are experiencing a shortfall between housing benefit and the rental, and it is unknown what the likely impact will be on them.

The council has not yet made a calculation, but it believes that a larger number of households will experience a significant shortfall between the rent and the housing benefit available. It anticipates that tenants who will ultimately be evicted because they can no longer meet their rent payments as a result of the shortfall will be found to be intentionally homeless, according to statutory interpretations, and therefore not eligible for assistance from the local authority. There will be an increase in demand for social housing in some areas, and the impacts on local people will be significant indeed.

We are very lucky in Cornwall to have the Cornwall Residential Landlords Association, which is a responsible and well-organised band of private landlords who, collectively and individually, provide an excellent service to the local population. They look for clear signals from the Government. I believe that the Government are looking at increasing the availability of direct payments to landlords in certain circumstances. Where that is done, preferably on a voluntary basis with the agreement of the tenant, it may help to lever rents down because the landlord will have a cushion of reassurance that the payments will come to them. However, the pressures and difficulties that will be experienced between landlords and tenants will intensify as a result of the cuts.

The problem in a market such as Cornwall’s—this applies to many other areas where there is also a vibrant tourism economy—is that landlords have alternatives that, frankly, on many occasions, will give them a far better income and greater certainty that they can recover the property. Many take up those alternatives. Many landlords will leave the marketplace and go for the much easier option of gleaning their income from the tourism sector.

The situation in Cornwall is not quite like the urban or suburban situation that I believe the Government have envisaged, whereby the alteration in the housing benefit arrangements and assessments will result in a levering down—a crow-barring—of the rentals in the private rented sector. It is not anticipated that that will happen in a place such as Cornwall, so I hope that the Government will look overall at this measure and consider that having a roof over one’s head is absolutely vital for many families. We are talking about working families who are simply seeking security in life from which to get to work, school their children and establish some kind of family security. This is about penalising people not because they are unwilling to work but simply because they are poorly paid, and I am sure the Government have no intention of doing that. I think they would like to ensure that work does pay.

Looking at the situation in Cornwall, which is, I understand, the same as in North Norfolk and other such rural settings, most analysts consider that there will be few new properties coming on to the market in the 30th percentile or below. Opportunities will be restricted, landlords will be given other options, and there will be instability, overcrowding and a possible cutting of corners, with families having to move and working families under greater stress. The problem with the proposal in the housing benefit reforms to extend the single room rent to people under the age of 35 is that there is little of that type of accommodation available in many rural areas, and planning policies seek to restrict what is often referred to as “bedsit land” in some smaller towns. On the one hand we have the Government, through their planning policies, giving local authorities the right to restrict the extent to which parts of small market towns are, as they see it, ghettoised by these bedsit arrangements, and on the other hand they have a policy that seeks to encourage that, through the housing benefit system.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that when there has been a partnership break-up, the option of only a single room allowance up to the age of 35 might prevent good quality contact with children?

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about one of the great difficulties that occur when there is family break-up. I fear that as a result of these kinds of measures we might get more family break-ups, because of the stress and pressure under which families might be placed. In our constituency surgeries, we all see families in that very sad situation. We see single parents “without care”, as they are sometimes rather unfairly described, who find themselves wanting to have contact with their child or children but being unable to do so because of their very constrained circumstances. This policy will only make that situation worse.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could look at levels of pay. In Cornwall, and similarly on the Isle of Wight, there is a higher level of pay in the summer and a lower level in the winter. Is that catered for in his understanding?

[Andrew George]

Other than with people who live in uncertain accommodation—winter lets during the winter and very uncertain accommodation in the summer—I am not aware of any circumstance in which people have variations in their rents, with a landlord varying the rate of rent on the basis of the tenant’s income. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am afraid that the system does not allow or cater at all for seasonality in working families’ employment and income.

A further incongruous circumstance is the potential conflict between this policy and what the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government appear to be doing regarding the registered social landlord sector. The intention is to allow, and even encourage, registered social landlords to increase the rent on their properties up to a notional 80% of the market rate for a particular location. The net effect of that—it will apply, I understand, to future new dwellings and to re-lets—is to create a rather strange circumstance: on the one hand the Government appearing to want to get the housing benefit bill down, but on the other hand one of their Departments appearing to ratchet it up. Of course, a large proportion of people in social rented accommodation—60% of those living in the accommodation of one of my RSLs—are in receipt of housing benefit, and ratcheting up the benefit in those properties would result in an increase in the housing benefit bill.

There will be other strange circumstances. People who seek to downsize their properties—for example, an older person living alone who wants to move into a single-person bungalow to release a family house for a local family—will be discouraged from doing so because the re-letting situation will mean that their rent could go up significantly if they were to pursue that otherwise relatively selfless act. By pursuing a re-let—a transfer—their rental might go up and their housing benefit might not cover it.

Because of the time, I shall quickly canter through a few other issues. First, on the wider issues of welfare reform, many of us will have read in the newspapers and heard in the media over the weekend the comments of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation, the Child Poverty Action Group and Action for Children, all warning about the unintended consequences. I certainly exonerate the Minister and her colleagues from wishing to pursue an intentional policy of impoverishing vulnerable people; I think that it is entirely unintended.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is coming to this point, but will he talk a little about the impact on vulnerable people now and in the future of not dealing with the deficit? Will he also refer to the positive measures in the Budget for businesses in his constituency? There is the scrapping of the jobs tax, the national insurance holiday, tens of thousands taken out of tax altogether, the pupil premium and other initiatives. Surely, in any speech on this subject, all those factors have to be taken into account.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful for that intervention; I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman arrived late and therefore missed the part of my speech when I congratulated the Government on precisely those measures.

Clearly, we need to deal with the deficit, but the question of the speed and the extent is a debating point. I am not necessarily saying that the current speed and extent are wrong, but that judgment needs to be kept under review. Also, where do we find the money from? The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) talked about the point that I am coming to; I will certainly come to a conclusion, which is that we need to question whether we have the balance right, so that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. I am not certain we do have it right, which is why we should be taking a measured judgment on the impact of the proposals across all income ranges.

All the groups I mentioned, and many others, have been warning about the unintended consequences of some of the welfare reforms. The Chartered Institute of Housing anticipates that by 2025 most two-bedroom properties in the south will be unaffordable to those claiming housing benefit, whether or not they are working. That will force people into areas with less employment—in other words, an unintended consequence, not making work pay by forcing people into areas where they will find it much more difficult to get a job. It will also steepen the tapers, for example, by increasing the rents on social rented accommodation. As we all know, if someone takes a job or accepts higher pay, housing benefit is often withdrawn at a rate of sometimes 80p in the pound earned, and that is on top of other benefits that may be lost, such as council tax benefit. That places people in a poverty trap that discourages them from taking the very work they are keen to take up. All those factors will lead to social impacts on stability, family security, children’s education and other matters.

Other sanctions are proposed that have been mooted in the press over the weekend and will no doubt be part of the Secretary of State’s statement on Thursday. We have been presented with the prospect of unemployed people wearing tabards, picking up litter from our streets as a result of some kind of compulsion. Having worked in the voluntary sector, among others, for a while before coming to Parliament, I know that the one thing we do not need is to apply compulsion or humiliation to this matter.

It is clear that the many people I speak to in my constituency who are seeking a job are extremely keen to secure not only a job but work experience. The Government’s proposal to set up voluntary arrangements that enable people to undertake worthwhile voluntary work in their communities can only be a good thing. Unemployed people want well organised work and voluntary opportunities, and the voluntary sector want the willing, not the unwilling. At the weekend, the Disability Alliance argued that many people will be pushed into poverty by the changes to the employment and support allowance, previously called incapacity benefit. We await the outcome of that proposed change on Thursday.

Within the care sector, pressure on local authority budgets—26% cuts over three years—means that councils are routinely removing the discretion to give care support to those in moderate need. As costs, and no doubt charges, go up, the definition of “higher” and “severe” need could become more stringent. Budget pressures are likely to reduce early intervention for children, as Action for Children identified over the weekend, and the services available to the most vulnerable. There is a 20% cut in the bus operators’ grant and local authorities are already looking at cutting some services. The young and the old will be most affected by that—those without a car, and, therefore, the most vulnerable. Other cuts, such as in the education maintenance allowance, will also affect young people.

The questions remain: will those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden, and will the vulnerable be protected? It is important not to forget that the gambling of the rich busted the banks, which did most to drop us in this situation. We must not allow them to get away with that while the poorest and public servants are made to pay the price; that is hardly justice. On the question of measures to get the balance right between cuts in services and benefits, and of where to obtain resources to maintain services, the banking levy, although welcome, is a relatively infinitesimal gnat bite on the banking sector, given the rate at which it is set.

[Julian Smith]

I am glad my hon. Friend has spoken about the banking levy, because the previous Government did not do that, and I presume he will give credit to the coalition for taking aggressive action on the banks, and for the three reviews on banking reform taking place over the coming year.

[Andrew George]

I again remind the hon. Gentleman that, had he been here earlier, he would have heard me mention that. I welcome the banking levy and have congratulated the coalition on it; it is a move in the right direction. However, I fear that some of the most vulnerable in society may be pushed further to the margins, and we need to keep that situation under review. Equally, we need to keep under review the question of whether the banking levy has been set at a level that retrieves from the banks the resources that we believe they should be putting back into the economy, having dropped us “in it” in the first place.

The Minister is an excellent Minister and I know she is listening to these concerns. I fear that the reforms, although well intentioned, may well miss the target: they may not necessarily push rents down in the way anticipated or protect the vulnerable, and they may fail to meet the Chancellor’s stated objective as given in his 20 October statement. A strong and self-confident Government can listen, reconsider, gracefully accept the situation, adjust and move on when things are not going quite according to their plan. In her winding-up speech, I hope the Minister will address those issues and reassure me that the Government are listening to these concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Nobody disagrees that we need a level of welfare reform, but the question of how we do that is at the centre of the debate. We could shut down the Department for Work and Pensions tomorrow and not spend an extra penny. That would be a degree of welfare reform, but it would be so ridiculous that it would be off this planet. We could have a level of reform that was too slow and did not really bite. I believe that the trajectory of reforms pursued by the previous Administration sought to strike a fair balance.

The extent to which Ministers are reducing what is known as “annually managed expenditure” within the welfare budget has been designed around a political strategy. By taking that amount from the welfare budget, the Chancellor tried to come within spitting distance, as he saw it, of Labour’s plans for deficit reduction within the departmental expenditure limits. That political strategy rapidly fell apart, particularly because the Opposition accepted the need for a certain level of welfare change.

Let us look at the points raised by the hon. Member for St Ives. If the welfare changes are not handled sensitively and their implementation is blind to the human costs involved, some of them will affect the real lives of real people. Such people will be increasingly frightened and unable to cope with some of the changes, and that will create great harm. That harm might not have the quantifiable economic or econometric measurements that we traditionally look at when monitoring fiscal and monitory policy, but it is real and will have an indirect effect on our economy.

[Andrew George]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s narrative, but before he strays too far from his point about the intentionality—or otherwise—of the possible consequences of the reform package, let me make it clear that I do not associate myself with his analysis. I do not believe that it is the intention of the Government or the Minister to impoverish people deliberately.

The point that I was building towards concerns the balance of risk. Taking a risk with the poor needs to be balanced by taking a risk with the banking sector, which I do not think that we are doing at the moment. If we are to probe policy so as to get the balance right between those with broad shoulders and more vulnerable people, we must put pressure on the top end just as much, if not more.

[Chris Leslie]

As I said, the hon. Gentleman is being more than fair—perhaps a little too fair—in his analysis of the Government’s intentions. I hope that I am wrong in saying that a measure of deliberate choice is involved. However, the weekends at Chequers during which the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister pored over the political stratagems that they could devise, having linked some of the measures in the spending review together, suggest that a balancing act was going on in the Government to think about who they could hit and get away with it, rather than the human consequences. That is a difference of opinion that we will have to accept.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Crausby, to serve under your chairmanship of this important Westminster Hall debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and pay tribute to him for securing the debate. I remember that during the spending review debate and the emergency Budget debate held earlier this year, his presence in the Chamber was constant, which shows his commitment to and concern about the issues—he is right to point out that we should all be deeply concerned about them. I shall start by setting out the background to some of the measures, and then talk in more detail about the housing benefit measures the hon. Gentleman mentioned in particular.

I listened to the response from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). He clearly holds a different view, but I found his speech deeply irresponsible in many ways. As an incoming coalition Government, we have picked up a fiscal deficit without precedent not just in our own country, but across the developed economies of the world. His party handed over that deficit, which we and the Liberal Democrats are working to address.

Certainly, the situation we took over was grave. The hon. Member for Nottingham East talked about the speed with which we are tackling the deficit, but that very much underscores just what a serious position our country was in when we came into government earlier this year. In fact, had we not taken the steps we are taking over the coming years, our debt would be £100 billion higher and we would be spending some £5 billion more as a nation on debt interest—money we want to put into supporting our public services. Had we not taken those steps, there would have been the real risk of being unable to have as a good a chance as we now do of keeping interest rates low, which is critical for companies investing and creating jobs and for households across the country with a mortgage.

Clearly, therefore, we needed to take action. One of the key pledges that we made as part of the spending review was that fairness would be at the heart of our decision making. The hon. Member for St Ives was right to say that despite the challenging backdrop against which the emergency Budget and the spending review took place, they included important measures such as increasing the personal allowance, which saw 880,000 people taken out of income tax altogether. Interestingly, he also mentioned that the Government’s aspiration was to go further on that, which is important. The distributional analysis and the IFS modelling do not take those aspirations into account, because we have not yet announced how we will carry them forward. Nor do they take into account the benefits of the universal credit or the stimulus and support that it will provide to people who are getting back into work. It is important to bear that in mind.

As I said, one of our key pledges in the spending review related to fairness. By fairness, I mean that, across the entire deficit-reduction plan, those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden. There has been a lot of debate about the IFS, and it is interesting that we have published more distributional analysis alongside our comprehensive spending review than any Government have ever done before. There is, of course, a debate about how to do that analysis in a more refined way, and the TUC, for example, took a view in its own analysis about how to spread defence spending across income deciles. Clearly, therefore, there are methodological questions that it is worth while looking at to see how we can improve things. Hon. Members will be aware that Robert Chote, who was the head of the IFS, now heads the Office for Budget Responsibility. He is precisely the kind of person who can help us to have a more transparent, independent assessment of our policy. That will help not only the Government, but people who look at our policy to understand what it means for our country and our communities.

Fairness has underpinned our approach. Critically, we have to move to a welfare system that helps and supports the vulnerable, but does not trap them in the way the system we have taken over too often did. We need a system that supports people back into work, and that is affordable. That is important because my great concern is that we need a system that people across our country buy into. That means that the system must be fair not only to the people in it, who need the support, but to those outside it, who perhaps work and pay their taxes. Those people might be happy to pay into a system to support the most vulnerable, but they might feel that it needs to be fair to them as well as to those who get the benefit payments. They need to feel that the system improves the lives of those who receive benefit payments and gives them the chance to be independent that, for various reasons, they do not have at the moment. I will say a little more shortly about how we can do that.

We have had a test on fairness, and there is no doubt that we have had to make some difficult decisions about how to spend the small amount of money we have following the Labour party’s profligacy in government. Today, in its debate on welfare on the Floor of the House, the Labour party will have another chance to set out how it would approach welfare reform. We have heard an awful lot about the fact that there is a better way of doing things, although we have occasionally heard from Labour Members that they do not oppose all our reforms. However, if we are to have a thoughtful and constructive debate about this important issue, it is time for the Opposition to engage more meaningfully, rather than simply setting out what they are against. They owe that to Parliament, which needs a proper debate from elected representatives, and to our country. They should set out exactly how an alternative, if there is one, would look.

I want now to look at the welfare state in a little more detail. Under the previous Government, benefit bills soared by 45%. In some cases, the benefit bill for a single out-of-work family amounted to the tax bills of 16 working families put together. To return to my earlier comments, everybody would say that that was not just unfair, but unsustainable. Given the financial position that we inherited, protecting the welfare budget was not an option. If we had done that, it would have forced more drastic front-line cuts on services elsewhere, which so many of us, including those on benefits, rely on so much. We therefore tried to focus our support on the people who need it most—the long-term unemployed, the very young, the very old, the disadvantaged and those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to work or find it hard to enter the labour market.

The spending review announced reforms to tackle welfare dependency by delivering a simplified system in which it always pays to work. The hon. Member for St Ives rightly mentioned impoverishment, and at its heart is the fact that people do not have a job. We need a welfare system that supports people back into work, and that applies particularly to people who have been on incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance. In one of my first roles as a new MP in Parliament, I sat on the Work and Pensions Committee, and I clearly remember that one of our first reports looked at incapacity benefit. It was a real scandal that although jobs had been created over the previous decade, the overwhelming majority of those on incapacity benefit were left wanting to work. On Thursday evening, I met visually impaired people in my constituency who were desperate to find work and to be financially independent. Those are the people we are keen to support back into work, but they were languishing on benefits in way that was bad for not just them, but our country and communities. It was also unaffordable.

[Andrew George]

The Minister is making an extremely important point; in fact, it was one of the many that I made. We need to establish a bridge between dependency and securing work. That applies to the housing benefit system, and I mentioned tapers, or the rate of withdrawal of housing benefit. The previous Government did nothing about the problem, which has been going on for decades. The point also applies to incapacity benefit. There is a cliff-face between benefit dependency and being able to get work. Perhaps the Government need to look a little more at ways of establishing a bridge to help people into work, rather than impoverishing them, putting them at risk or worrying them about making the transition into work.

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman raises one of the key flaws that has existed in the welfare system, which is that it has trapped people. Going back to my time on the Work and Pensions Committee, I remember an inquiry that we did into Jobcentre Plus. The then Government had to introduce a better-off test to prove to people that they were better off going into work, because it was so complicated to work out what benefits people were receiving and what they would lose. It was not clear to people that moving into work would be the best thing for them financially.

The hon. Gentleman will be interested to read the White Paper that the Department for Work and Pensions will release in the next few days on the universal credit, which is intended absolutely to make sure that people who are currently on benefits know that they will be better off if they move back into work. We can move away from the situation faced by some of the worst-off people in our country, who have moved into work only to be penalised with some of the highest marginal rates of tax, which are simply eye-watering. We would not dream of putting even the highest earners on such rates, but the marginal rates of tax faced by some of the lowest-income people have been huge, and the universal credit is aimed at starting to tackle that situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

No; I want to make some progress.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East could have set out some better alternatives, but he failed to do so. That is a shame for our democracy. I assure him that we are tackling problems in the welfare system that the previous Government failed to tackle; I had hoped that he would welcome that. I know that the Opposition agree with some of our welfare reforms; it would help if we knew which ones, as we could then have a genuine political debate about areas of disagreement.

The universal credit will be a big step forward, and a good one. It will ensure that people are no longer trapped in welfare, as they have been. The hon. Member for St Ives said that one of our achievements as a coalition Government was to re-establish the earnings link. He is right; against the backdrop of a difficult fiscal deficit, we have maintained pensioner benefits on things such as free eye tests, free prescriptions, the free bus pass and free TV licences for the over-75s. We have also increased the cold weather payment award permanently to £25.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned social care. Again, it is symptomatic of what we have in mind that we must protect the most vulnerable. That is why we have added £2 billion to the social care bill, with £1 billion from the NHS and £1 billion from the budget of the Department for Communities and Local Government. That is precisely to ensure that local authorities do not need to restrict access to social care. The fact that the money comes from the NHS and the Department shows that we need them to work more closely together. The reality is that health and social care are inextricably linked. Indeed, good social care can protect the vulnerable and help them maintain a healthy and independent life. As MPs, we have all seen people in our surgeries who are very keen to do that, and we have all worked to help people maintain the independence that so many want. We have therefore been particularly careful to ensure that funding for social care is supported.

I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s important comments on housing benefit. In the changes that we made to housing benefit, we tried to ensure that we tackle the underpinning of affordable housing and the lack of new affordable housing. One reason why housing has become so expensive is the gap between demand and supply, and the fact that housing starts over the last 10 years have generally been lower than in the past. That was so particularly for social housing, and especially for affordable homes in places such as London.

That is the backdrop and the key reason why rents have risen and housing has generally become more expensive. The previous model of affordable housing did not work. If Government money had been thrown at it during an economic boom, we would have seen the sorts of affordable housing that were needed, but it did not happen. We therefore had to think of different ways to do it. We are working far more effectively with housing associations and other investors that want to create housing, to ensure that we get back to creating the levels of social housing and affordable housing that are needed. That means investment—£4.5 billion for new affordable homes and £2 billion for the decent homes programme. We also need a more flexible system of affordable housing to help those who need to move for work and to protect the most vulnerable, and one that is also fair to the taxpayer.

[Andrew George]

I acknowledged earlier that £4.5 billion will be retained over the next three years for social housing. However, the Government intend funding the shortfall by allowing social landlords to increase their rents by up to 80% of the market value. That will result in more housing benefit. Within the Treasury’s modelling, to what extent does the Economic Secretary anticipate the increase in public-sector contribution resulting from the increase in the housing benefit to be paid to residential social landlords as a result of rent increases?

[Justine Greening]

It is important to say that the change relates to new tenants rather than existing ones. Existing tenancies will not be affected by such measures. On the question of market rates and affordability, we will want to see landlords, the Homes and Communities Agency, and the regulator, in conjunction with local authorities, talking about ensuring affordability. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that housing benefit will still be available to support people.

The challenge is to move to a more sustainable footing for housing, and particularly for social housing. That is most important for housing associations, and the need for them to keep reinvesting. We have tried to strike a balance that is broadly fair to those on existing tenancies and to ensure that the new stock that we seek to create—the £4.5 billion will create about 150,000 affordable homes—is used more effectively to support people. At the same time, we want to work with people to ensure that rents are affordable. Nevertheless, housing benefit will still be there.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the cap on the housing allowance and setting the local allowance at the 30th percentile rate. The reality is that people who are working must ensure that they can afford where they live. It will be difficult to ask them to pay into a system in which people on out-of-work benefits are living in areas that they simply cannot afford. The 30th percentile change is about trying to strike the right balance between what is affordable and what is fair and reasonable.

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady is right: different parts of the country clearly have different housing needs and challenges. The Department for Work and Pensions will be working with local authorities through the transition period, and as she pointed out, we need funding in place for that as well. There will be £140 million of discretionary funding to support local authorities, £10 million of which is for London. It is worth pointing out that that is not the only support available for those affected.

For example, we still have many things such as the social fund, which includes budgeting loans, crisis loans and community care grants that are being maintained. We are considering how the social fund can be more localised, so we are working with the Department for Communities and Local Government and local authorities to see how we can best use the money we have to support people, in a way that works for them and at the local level. Interestingly, no London MPs are here, apart from me. Depending on where one represents in the country, there is a different group of constituents, facing a different series of challenges. Therefore, ensuring that the local aspect is fully part of how we work through the transition is vital. That is why the role of the Department for Work and Pensions, working with local authorities and the DCLG, is so critical. That is also why, as Liberal Democrats will recognise, localism is a theme that needs to run more broadly through our policy across Government. That is one reason why in this area it is important.

[Andrew George]

That is central to the point that I was making, and it has been repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). I entirely understand that in a London setting, and perhaps in other parts of the country, this is a debate about the understandable sense of injustice among hard-working people, who feel that those who are not working have preferential, and indeed better, living circumstances than they themselves can afford. In my part of the country that does not apply. The key issue is that the rental properties coming on to the market are not getting close to even the median or below, which is the setting for housing benefit in my area. Understanding how the market works in our area, we know that the policy of ratcheting it down to 30% will not lever private rents downward. It will leave a large group of people—working and non-working—significantly impoverished.

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman has set out his concerns for his area. I go back to my earlier comment about the 30th percentile change. That is the right thing to do to ensure that people feel the system is fair. As for rents, interestingly, if one looks at the changes around local housing allowance, about 32% of people affected by the changes will lose money, but will still get enough to cover their rent. Because of the way that local housing allowance worked in the past—it meant that people got more than they needed to pay their rent—a third of people will not be left with a shortfall.

We talked about the discretionary fund and working with local authorities. The concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised are precisely why we want to ensure that as much of that support as possible can be localised. The reason is twofold. Local authorities might feel that the best way they can support people is to keep them in the homes they are already in—that is the decision they take. In other cases, they might feel that the best long-term sustainable situation is to help people to move to something that is more affordable to them.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise those issues, which are precisely why we have set aside £140 million to ensure that the support is there to tackle some of those on-the-ground changes through the transition period, as we move to a housing benefit system that feels fairer and more affordable, and that does not trap people in poverty and out of work, as we have seen in the past.

I thank the hon. Member for St Ives for securing today’s debate, which has raised some very important points, and I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. There is no doubt that the spending review will have an impact across our society—not just for the next four years, but for many to come. The decisions we have made will help to shape Britain’s future. That is something of which I am very conscious. That is why we have put such an emphasis on fairness, protecting the vulnerable and supporting the most needy.

That fairness is rooted in not only supporting people today, but giving them the opportunity of a better quality of life tomorrow. We know that cuts to public expenditure have to be made—even the Opposition would agree with that—but that should not come at a cost of a more divided society, where the poorest and the most disadvantaged suffer as a result of mistakes that were never theirs. Our actions in the spending review reflect that: we have delivered a fair settlement, demonstrated that we are a progressive Government and supported the most vulnerable in our society. That was our promise when we came to power, and it is one that we fully intend to keep.