Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Lilian Greenwood

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I will not take lectures from somebody who believes that 80% of market rent is affordable for people in London, or from somebody who calls in planning applications, such as the one for Mount Pleasant in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), to drive down, not up, the number of affordable homes. That is not what I call a good record on affordable homes.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Having visited my constituency, my hon. Friend knows that one thing the local authorities are doing is investing in our social housing and ensuring that it is of a decent standard. Does she share the consternation of the chief executive of my local arm’s length management organisation, Nottingham City Homes, who notes that the reduction in social rents will lead to a reduction in investment and a failure to invest in the housing standards that tenants would like?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. As we have so many Members who wish to speak, we need short interventions.

Legal aid

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Lilian Greenwood

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not agree more. Members of all parties know that such examples come up time and again in their surgeries. The other day someone came to my surgery who had been overpaid benefits and now has a massive sum to pay back, though the matter was not their fault. The state has responsibility to such people.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend as shocked as I was to hear from Nottingham law centre that 42% of the clients’ problems it helps to solve are caused by administrative or procedural errors by Departments or local authorities? Does she share my concern that many of those constituents who had help have poor levels of education and that some struggle with literacy? Without assistance from a law centre, they will not be able to resolve those problems.

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That goes to the heart of the argument. These cuts will affect the most vulnerable in our society; yet another example of Government cuts hitting the poorest hardest.

I want to refer to taking debt out of the legal aid budget. The Government have recognised in the Green Paper that many of the people who are mired in debt are ill or disabled, and that debt often afflicts the most vulnerable in society. Yet they are still proceeding to introduce proposals and measures that will deny those people access to legal advice and representation.

I will briefly mention something I raised in the House last week. I asked the Leader of the House what was going to happen to the financial inclusion fund, which is a great source of help for people with debt problems. In Wolverhampton, hundreds of people are helped every year by this fund. I was given wise counsel by the Leader of the House that I should raise the issue this morning. He was sure that the Minister would give me an answer. I know that the matter is being administered by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury, but I urge the Minister to give clarity on whether the fund is to go ahead beyond March. Again, the uncertainty that my hon. Friends have raised applies and it is not helpful.

I do not wish to be too long because I know that other colleagues want to get in. I want to add that, apart from failing the test of social justice, these proposals also fail on a cost-benefit analysis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North eloquently explained that the cuts will be a false economy in many areas. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux published a business case for legal aid this year. It said that for every pound of legal aid spent on housing advice, the state saves £2.34, and for every pound spent on debt advice, the state saves £2.98. It also stated that on welfare benefit advice, the state saves £8.80, and that on employment advice, it could save £7.13.

Have the Government looked properly at the savings that early intervention makes possible? Have they done a proper cost-benefit analysis of the costs of their proposals for public services down the line? I fear that this is short-sighted, and that the Government are seeking short-term savings that will have significant costs later. Other Members have made the same point.

The other thing that worries me is that the Government say in the Green Paper that other alternatives will be available. The document then outlines what those alternatives might be. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North has already mentioned this, but it is telling: NACAB says that the overwhelming majority of its client group will not be able to access the alternatives identified in the Green Paper.