Local Government and Social Care Funding
Debate between Andrew Gwynne and James Cartlidge(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are too many instances across the public sector where cost-shunting is resulting in precisely what my hon. Friend says: vulnerable people falling through gaps that should not exist. I think that in their heart of hearts, Conservative Members, who clearly deal with casework that is similar to ours, will know that that is happening in their areas too.
Andrew Gwynne
If the hon. Gentleman is going to apologise for the cuts he has forced on our local communities, I will give way to him.
James Cartlidge
Very kind of the hon. Gentleman. He was referring to what has happened since 2010. Let us just remind ourselves that the 2010 Labour manifesto said that certain areas would be prioritised and protected. Will he remind us whether that included local government?
Andrew Gwynne
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the 2017 Labour manifesto said that we would put money back into our public services, something that he has failed to do in the almost three years since that general election.
Andrew Gwynne
Of course, individuals and families are taking the hit from all the cuts, and they are having to step in.
Andrew Gwynne
Let me answer the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) first. We have to have a sensible discussion about how we are going to fund social care. Yes, it is about money, and we have pledged to ensure that there is £8 billion for social care—that was in Labour’s manifesto in the 2017 general election—and we need to make sure that that commitment remains in our future manifesto and is updated, because it needs that immediate cash injection to start with. However, we also need to look very seriously at how we provide adult social care. I really do wish that we could try to break down some of the politicking that has gone on for far too long—[Interruption.] Members can heckle, but it is a fact that before the 2010 general election, Andy Burnham, the then Health Secretary, sat down with the Liberal Democrat health spokesperson and the Conservative health spokesperson to try to work out a way forward. We went into that 2010 general election with poster boards about Labour’s “death tax”. That serves nobody. We need to make sure that we will have something that is sustainable for the long term, and I hope that we can genuinely get to a place where we can do that and talk about how we fund adult social care and children’s services going forward.
Budget Resolutions
Debate between Andrew Gwynne and James CartlidgeThursday 1st November 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2019 View all Finance Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Gwynne
As I was speaking about education, the hon. Gentleman must try harder, go to the back of the class and pay attention. Some £1.3 billion of cuts—
Andrew Gwynne
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, £1.3 billion of cuts next year are hard-wired into the system—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government can shake his head, but the statistics come from the Tory-led Local Government Association. The cuts will devastate councils that are already struggling. Austerity is certainly not over for local government. Councils were the first and perhaps the easiest target of the coalition Government, and they have had to endure some of the largest cuts across the public sector.
Andrew Gwynne
No, I am going to make some progress.
After all, by cutting funding to councils, Ministers have shifted the blame on to councillors, including Conservative councillors. Councils of all political persuasions and none are now at breaking point. The effects of that on our communities are plain to see across the country. More than 500 children’s centres have shut down and 475 libraries have closed. Support for disabled children has been stripped away—for example, the transport that helped them to get to school to learn like their friends. Support for older people has been slashed, with 1.4 million older people now not getting the necessary help with essential tasks such as washing and dressing. Bus routes have been cut. Our roads are in disrepair, and before the Government laud the £420 million for potholes, I must point out the £1 billion backlog created by this Government’s cuts. Swimming pools, leisure centres and community spaces have closed. Bin collections have been reduced. Youth clubs have closed. Planning departments have been stripped out. Trading standards offices have been slashed, leaving more people at risk of fraud or dodgy goods. Streetlights have been turned off to save money.
Local Government Funding
Debate between Andrew Gwynne and James Cartlidge(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is the short-term approach of this Government and their predecessor, the coalition. However, making short-term savings in a particular year has resulted in massive cost and demand increases further down.
Andrew Gwynne
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he keeps trying to intervene on interventions.
James Cartlidge
When interventions transmute into speeches, some of us get a little frustrated. The point is that difficult decisions had to be made when in 2010, we were faced with the highest budget deficit since the war. The hon. Gentleman is effectively saying that we should have protected the Department for Communities and Local Government budget, just as we chose to protect the NHS. What taxes would he have increased or what other Departments would he have cut to pay for that?
Andrew Gwynne
I will take no lectures from a Member who voted to cut the bank levy by £5 billion. I politely point him towards the “Grey Book”, which we published with our manifesto, “For the many, not the few”—I am sure it is well thumbed on the Government Benches. In our manifesto we pledged to give, this year and every year, an additional £1.5 billion for local councils and where we—[Interruption.]
Andrew Gwynne
The Secretary of State says he will tell me. I am glad that he is looking into Labour policy development. Perhaps he ought to consider his own policy development on these matters, because the Government are so woefully lacking in any such proposals. Our proposal was fully costed, with £500 million for early years, £8 billion for social care—
Andrew Gwynne
I will not give way again, because I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s question. What we proposed, when put together, is a far better deal for our children, our elderly and our councils than what the Conservatives have been able to come forward with.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I will come to some of those issues later, but her point is very well made, because we have not only seen the hollowing out of our local services. We have also seen the impact of that on local government as a whole.
I know that is an inconvenient truth for Ministers, and I am sure that when the Secretary of State responds, with his pre-prepared speech, he will say that I am making overtly political points. That seems to be his stock answer. He seems to forget that it is the job of the Opposition to point out the Government’s failings, of which there are many in local government policy. However, it is not just the Labour party saying this; it is the National Audit Office. Surely the Government recognise the National Audit Office as a reputable organisation that knows what it is talking about. The NAO has told us what the Government’s policies mean. They mean that one in 10 councils with social care obligations will have exhausted their reserves within the next three years. They mean that the Government’s short-term fixes are not working and that local government still has no idea how its finances will work after 2020. It is about the cost of negligence being paid for by communities across the country. Vital services are cut, and because the Government shift the blame on to local councils, giving them so-called flexibility but then criticising them when they use it, council tax bills are increasing.
Planning and development, the National Audit Office has shown, has been cut by 52.8%. If we are to meet the Government’s ambitious targets for new homes, who will be the planners of the future? Who will identify the land to be built on? Who will process the planning applications? Who will be the enforcement officers to ensure that the homes and other buildings are built in accordance with the plans?
Funding for transport has been cut by 37.1%. These are our bus routes. These are the vital links between our communities. These are our roads, our pavements, our cycleways. I note that Conservative Members are now silent about that.
James Cartlidge
It is extremely kind of the hon. Gentleman to give way, but it must be said that he is continuing the same argument. When we had the deficit, we chose to protect the NHS and had to make other difficult choices. He is effectively saying that Labour would have protected the budget of the Department for Communities and Local Government. He must therefore tell us what other budgets he would have cut, or what taxes he would have increased, to pay for that protection.
Andrew Gwynne
I think that people listening to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention will find it hard to believe that he protected the NHS, for a start. However, I am glad that he has intervened on the issue of transport. It is rather ironic that he has come here and said that we would want to protect local government. He is damn right we want to protect local government, but so does his Defence Secretary. His Defence Secretary took to Twitter a couple of weeks ago decrying the fact that Conservative-controlled Staffordshire County Council was removing bus services from his constituency—the same Defence Secretary who voted for the cuts in this place.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill
Debate between Andrew Gwynne and James CartlidgeFriday 1st December 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2017-19 View all Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
Andrew Gwynne
I will not give way again, because many Members want to speak.
Cutting 50 MPs also presents a crisis of scrutiny, a concern raised by the Electoral Reform Society. Under the current proposals, the reduction would be made entirely from the Back Benches—the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), can shake her head, but there are no proposals to reduce the number of Ministers. That would only increase the Executive dominance of Parliament and undermine the influence of scrutiny from the Back Benches.
Andrew Gwynne
I will not give way.
As our great nation prepares to leave the European Union, the need for parliamentary scrutiny—I know that it is unfashionable on the Government Benches, where Members will not even take part in Opposition day votes—has never been greater. We are also, as we have heard, losing 73 Members of the European Parliament. That is cutting the cost of politics, for a start, but we in this House will be taking on more powers, more responsibilities and more legislative work. It is right that we should have the ability to do that unhindered. That is another reason why we oppose the reduction in the number of MPs.
I am aware that our Northern Ireland colleagues have raised concerns about the Government’s proposals and about their potential to undermine political stability in the Province. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton has clearly listened and responded accordingly. The Opposition welcome measures in the Bill to have a fixed allocation of 18 Members of this House and to keep the protected areas already legislated for in 2011.
Our opposition is shared by many. The Hansard Society found no rationale for the Government’s decision. noting that there was a “real concern” that the number had been
“plucked from thin air—600 simply being a neat number.”
The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee called on the Government to reverse their decision, stating that there had been a complete absence of consultation or research into the impact on Member’s roles and functions.
On the electoral roll, constituencies must represent the communities they serve. This Government may try to stack the deck in their favour by drawing the boundaries based on the December 2015 electoral register, but since then more than 2 million more people have been added to the electoral roll following the increase in registration at the EU referendum and the 2017 general election.
It is easy for the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean to say that the first review would result in major changes and subsequent reviews in minor changes, but that depends on where the additional registration has taken place. In Bristol West in the run-up to the general election, there was a 12% increase in registration. Similar large increases were seen in Leeds Central, Leeds North West, Bethnal Green and Bow, Poplar and Limehouse and Wolverhampton South East. In this year alone, 1.1 million additional voters were added to the register, and a third of those were in London and the south-east. If we have concentrations of increases, we will have the domino effect that we have all been subject to in the first major review, so subsequent reviews will also be pretty extensive.
Any constitutional changes should be done fairly, with everyone given a voice. That is not what the Government and the boundary review have done. We welcome the Bill, which addresses these failings and sets electorate calculations using the 2017 electoral roll. It has been clear from the start that the Government have been interested only in their own political advantage rather than what is in the best interests of the country. We therefore welcome the Bill, which will address the failings of this Government and ensure that a fresh boundary review can go ahead in a way that benefits our democracy, and not just the narrow interests of the Conservative party.