Debates between Ian Lavery and Jane Ellison during the 2010-2015 Parliament

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Lavery and Jane Ellison
Tuesday 25th February 2014

(10 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jane Ellison Portrait Jane Ellison
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am aware that this is a very difficult, complex and emotive area. I have heard before the point that the hon. Lady makes about GPs. I am very happy to take up her points and discuss them with her.

Ian Lavery Portrait Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

12. What recent meetings he has had with representatives of the private health care sector.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Debate between Ian Lavery and Jane Ellison
Wednesday 27th February 2013

(11 years, 8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jane Ellison Portrait Jane Ellison
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is right to put on record that many councils are responding sensibly and imaginatively to the many challenges that have been handed to them by the inevitable decisions that the Government have had to take.

Another group of people who often come to see me in my surgeries, and for whom there is no solution in social housing, are young single people, in particular young single men. I always feel my heart sink when they come to talk to me about the possibility of getting any sort of subsidised housing, because, as we all know, they attract absolutely no points. If some people affected by the removal of the subsidy choose to rent out a room, I would welcome that because the group likely to benefit would be those young single people in areas such as mine. They do starter jobs that are much-needed in a 24 hour city such as London. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) from a sedentary position is questioning whether anyone would do that—people used to do it all the time. To return to the point about exaggeration, earlier in the debate someone implied that the inevitable consequence of deciding to take in a lodger would be some sort of abuse or crime. People used to do this all the time. Raising people’s fears and exaggerating them is not helpful at all.

Ian Lavery Portrait Ian Lavery
- Hansard - -

rose

Jane Ellison Portrait Jane Ellison
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Let me finish this point. I have checked with my council and it is the case that council tenants, as long as they do not either overcrowd or sub-let the lease, are able to take in a lodger if they so choose. For some people that might be a sensible solution. That might help the young single people who come and see me, and to whom I can give no suggestions about where they might find socially subsidised housing. If they are the winners of this process, that is a good thing, because they are currently the losers.

I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will just draw attention to some of the practical measures being done by councils. There is an extra £30 million of discretionary housing allowance, and my council has certainly seen a significant rise in its discretionary amount. It has already put together a co-ordinated action plan between the finance and housing departments. It has contacted all potentially affected recipients and customers, and is beginning to confirm their benefit details. It has set up a helpline to discuss options to downsize. It is in direct contact with some of those households. It is also in direct contact with some of the social landlords to look at where there might be work that they could do. We heard an interesting example earlier about how social landlords in Liverpool had come together to try and pool their resources. There are quite a lot of sensible things that local councils that are planning ahead can do, and, of course, some people will choose to take other options.

I make this plea to Opposition Members. I would like to think that when they are approached by people with specific difficulties, especially associated with disability and so on, their first thought is not, “This would be an ideal case to read out in Prime Minister’s Question Time”—we have heard this in respect of many other welfare changes, particularly from the Labour party—but to say, “You might well be covered by the discretionary payment, and I’m going to make inquiries about that and exercise my influence to say that you should be.”