Local Government Finance Bill

Heidi Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. In trying to remedy the problem, the most disadvantaged councils will be those with the lowest tax bases. That has been true throughout all our discussions on the Bill. If demand goes up, councils will be faced under this scheme with either bearing the extra cost or, more likely, redesigning their schemes to restrict the number of those eligible. The Chartered Institute of Housing said it very clearly: council tax benefit awards will be

“squeezed precisely at the point at which there is the most need for help amongst low income households.”

London Councils estimated that if this scheme had been in place earlier, a shortfall of £400 million would have been faced in the five years to 2009-10.

The Government say that councils can do something about this. The Minister for Housing and Local Government says, in what I have to say reads like a rather garbled piece of evidence to the Select Committee, that considering whether to pass on the 10% reduction to claimants or to find the money elsewhere was “old-school thinking”—or what the rest of us might call “doing your sums”. I am sure that councils facing these cuts will have been relieved to hear that they could reduce the bill

“not by unfairly not paying people who are vulnerable and need it”,

which seems to me to be the precise effect of this scheme; no, he said, councils should be ensuring that there is

“a definite interest in starting up that new industrial estate, business park and getting economic activity going so there are jobs.”

Let me say this slowly, so that Ministers can understand it. If a firm closes down or lays off staff, a new business park does not open up the next day. People are out of work; they claim benefit; and if there is not enough money to pay that benefit, councils either have to cut what is available or find the money somewhere else from budgets already facing massive cuts. It is staggering to hear a Government who have presided over a rise in unemployment to 2.6 million and who have seen the economy flatline lecturing local councils about the need to open business parks. Only the Minister for Housing and Local Government, whose overwhelming self-confidence is matched only by the staggering depths of his ignorance, could come out with such nonsense.

It is not surprising that the Select Committee was unimpressed, saying:

“We have seen little evidence to support the hope that the new and better-paying jobs for individuals, immediately sufficient to offset the 10% reduction in the benefit budget will inevitably follow from these incentives.”

It continued to stress what we have talked about throughout this Committee stage—that

“the means of economic growth are never solely in the gift of individual local authorities.”

It is, of course, precisely the authorities that have already borne the brunt of the Government’s cuts that will find themselves in most difficulty with this council tax scheme.

The New Policy Institute estimated that five out of the 10 hardest-hit local authorities are among the top 10 most deprived areas in the country: Hackney, Newham, Liverpool, Islington and Knowsley. In the Liverpool city region, for example, the current proposals would result in cuts of between 17% and 23% for people of working age—those who are not pensioners. Let me give one example. A single person in Halton in a band A property would have to find £179.92 a year extra. In Sefton, which has a higher than average number of pensioners, a minimum reduction of 23% will be required for people of working age. A couple living in a band A property would have to find an extra £226.72 a year.

Those might not seem large sums to Government Members, but to people who have to count every penny, who sometimes run out of money before the end of the week, they are simply impossible to find. That is why we have tabled these amendments—to ensure that the needs of people of working age and those in poverty are taken into account. Where is this extra money going to come from? Do Government Members believe that it can be somehow magicked out of thin air? This does not even provide incentives to work, even if there were jobs to go to. The Government are not clear about the vulnerable households that should be protected. They have made it clear that they want to protect pensioners, but they are singularly unclear about other vulnerable groups. If, as is likely, local authorities will have to protect those on employment and support allowance, jobseeker’s allowance and income support, there will have to be an even bigger cut for the unprotected group—overwhelmingly the working poor. We have a Government who claim that they are freezing council tax, but they are actually increasing it for those least able to pay.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Some people who pay no council tax at present may find themselves paying it for the first time, while others who pay some at present may find themselves paying more. It is hugely, and sadly, ironic that, while claiming that they are enabling councils to freeze tax, the Government are increasing it for the poorest members of our communities.

[Helen Jones]

I could not have put it better myself. An especially ridiculous aspect of the proposals is that the extent to which a council is hit will depend largely on the number of pensioners who live in the area. It is essentially a matter of chance. Moreover, if people on passported benefits are protected, it is possible that those in work will face a cut of up to 40%, which would wipe out any gains from the raising of personal allowances. The Government have absolutely no right to boast about a tax cut when they give with one hand and take with the other.

We are attempting to ensure that at least the needs of those of working age are not forgotten when councils draw up the scheme. I fully accept that Labour councils will try to do that anyway, although they have been hamstrung by the Government, but I do not believe that Government Members have demonstrated during our debates on the Bill that they understand how much these sums mean to the very poorest people. If I may use the Prime Minister’s words, they do not get it. They do not understand what it is like to run out of money before the next wage packet or benefit payment. They do not understand what it is like to have to choose between paying a bill and buying the children a new pair of shoes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stunell]

Unfortunately, the hon. Lady has partly misread the scheme. Paragraph 2(8) of schedule 4 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations in relation to the requirements of schemes, and he intends to use this power to require authorities to provide support for pensioners. The purpose of that provision is precisely to safeguard pensioners—a point on which, it would appear, there is cross-party support. It does not require the Secretary of State to approve schemes, and it is not a power to intervene in schemes. I think that I have made that point clear to the House, and if I have not, I repeat it now to make it so.

Several rather whacky points have been made. The hon. Gentleman for Stockport North said—[Hon. Members: “Stockton North”] Sorry, I should know better. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said that Labour had worked hard to close the gap between the rich and poor. Well, I do not know how hard it worked, but it certainly did not work, because the gap between the rich and the poor widened in that time. It did not narrow. He seemed extremely sceptical about whether it was possible for authorities such as Stockton to generate the additional income from discounts and exemptions to compensate them for the loss of council tax benefit grant.

By my count, 18 local authorities have been drawn into the debate in one way or another—all of them by Opposition Members praying in aid councils that they believed would be at a disadvantage. Of those 18, 14 could in fact generate from the discounts and exemptions in their areas more money than they would lose from the loss of council tax benefit grant. Among those authorities is Stockton, which would have a surplus, if it extinguished all the discounts. The hon. Member for Stockton North referred to second homes, but an important part of the new flexibility—and part of the reason Stockton could have a surplus—relates to empty homes. Empty homes discounts provide another potential source of revenue.

When one considers the generality of local authorities, one discovers that were all those discounts and exemptions to be extinguished—as I said in the previous debate, I am not arguing that they should be, but I want the House to understand that the flexibility is there—it would result in an additional income to local authorities in England of £420 million. By what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) called a fluke, that happens to be the same amount as the 10% reduction. The Government are not arguing that every local authority should simply extinguish those discounts and exemptions. We are simply pointing out that that provides for a significant flexibility, and I would be surprised if a large majority of councils did not choose to make that flexibility a part of the mix when devising a scheme.

Local authorities need to plan carefully to ensure that they can meet demand through the funding that they make available to local schemes. As the hon. Member for Warrington North acknowledged, however, funding for the first two years of localised schemes is derived from the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast for spending on council tax benefit, which reflects existing spending and, therefore, assumptions about underlying demographic changes, including growth in the pensioner population, and council tax increases. Thereafter, of course, the spending review process will provide further opportunities to consider cost pressures.

Local authorities are already well accustomed to using these powers to determine in what circumstances council tax liability should be reduced, whether in individual cases or a class of cases. Local authorities are best placed to understand local needs, including those of low-income families. Paragraph 2(5) of proposed new schedule 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which is inserted by schedule 4, already requires local authorities to set out the procedures for making an application for a reduction under the scheme.

Amendments 56 and 70 would require local authorities to take into account the impact of their schemes on the living standards and work incentives of taxpayers, and on poverty levels when designing or revising their schemes. However, local authorities already have clearly defined responsibilities in relation to, and for their awareness of, the most vulnerable groups and individuals in their areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made the point that there are statutory responsibilities on local government when drawing up such schemes, or indeed taking any of its functions forward. An important example is the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires authorities in the exercise of their functions to have due regard to the promotion of equality between persons who share a protected characteristic, while the Child Poverty Act 2010 imposes a duty on local authorities to have regard to, and to address, child poverty. She referred, quite properly, to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, both of which include a range of duties relating to the welfare needs of disabled people. She also referred to the Housing Act 1996, which gives local authorities a duty to prevent homelessness.

Putting all that together, it is quite clear that every local authority is familiar with the need to ensure that any scheme it draws up complies with existing statutory guidelines. That is a continuous process that requires all the relevant decision makers to consider equality, disability and other issues, in forming policy and making decisions. We expect to continue with that sensible approach. There is no reason for unnecessary additional bureaucracy to be imposed on local authorities.

[Heidi Alexander]

With the best will in the world, is not the problem that, with £490 million less to administer in council tax benefit—a reduction that will come about as a result of the proposals in the Bill—councils will be simply unable to meet the needs of the rising numbers of people who will be unemployed in future?

[Andrew Stunell]

If I can correct just one small point, the figure is £420 million for England, although the sum for the United Kingdom as a whole is larger. The hon. Lady is quite right that there is to be a reduction in the funding of council tax benefit support. That is not in dispute. My point—and the point the Government are making—is that local authorities have additional income streams open to them in later parts of the Bill. They also have the opportunity to tailor their schemes to suit their local circumstances, and if they choose to draw resources from other parts of their income streams, it is open to them to do that.

Let me turn to amendments 49 and 56. It is unclear how a local authority could take into account the impact of claimants who were receiving council tax benefit before the introduction of a local scheme. For example, that would require a local authority to know, several years after the implementation of the reform, whether a person would have been entitled to claim council tax benefit under the old system and whether a change in circumstances meant that a person would no longer be eligible at all. The Bill already provides for local authorities to make transitional provision as they see fit, following changes to their schemes or the introduction of a new scheme. That seems a far better way of proceeding.

Amendment 67 would require authorities to publish, as part of the scheme, the steps that they would take to ensure that people were informed of their entitlement and what assistance they would be offered. That is a sensible requirement, but paragraphs 2(1) and 2(5) of new schedule 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, inserted by schedule 4 to the Bill, already require the authority to set out the classes of persons who are entitled to a reduction, and the procedure for making an application. The provision that the amendment seeks to introduce is therefore already part of the legislation.