Housing Costs (Reformed Welfare System)

Debate between John Hemming and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that the proposals from the late Malcolm Wicks involved incentives to move, not financial penalties to be applied immediately whether or not houses are available.

[John Hemming]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but my reading of all the documents, including those memoirs, is different from hers. It was not about an incentive to move, which I do not think anyone would criticise. I think that his proposals were very similar to those that have been adopted by this Government, as seen in the written parliamentary questions.

[John Hemming]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The scheme for working out how much space people need and paying them for it was introduced in the private sector many years ago. The Opposition will make the valid point that they did not make it retrospective, but the Government then say that if we want to deal with overcrowding and the like, this is one of the difficulties. Speaking personally, I would rather not do any of these things, but we do not have the finances for that. If we had chosen to take the Greek approach and said, “Can’t pay, won’t pay”, and then run out of money, we would not have had to do a lot of these things, but sadly we have to try to bring the books into balance over time.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The fundamental problem with this whole policy—I think the hon. Gentleman is taking this position as well—is whether it is about saving money or making better use of houses. The amount being saved even on the Government’s own initial estimates was not enormous, and when we factor in discretionary housing payments and all the other things that have to be taken into account, the savings diminish even further. This is not really something that will save a lot of money. [Interruption.]

[John Hemming]

From a sedentary position, the Minister says, “£1 million a day”, which is about the order of magnitude that we were talking about. A policy can have more than one objective. It can be designed to save money and also to deal with overcrowding. This year, I have not had anyone in my office complaining about social services criteria, but I often get people complaining about being overcrowded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.

In Scotland, the priority given to people who are homeless—a much wider definition of homelessness has been adopted by the Scottish Government—means that there is real competition for smaller houses. The majority of people who present as homeless are single people, so they too need the small houses that other people are trying to fit into.

[John Hemming]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that the then housing Minister, the late Malcolm Wicks, gave to a question from the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown):

“We hope to implement a flat rate housing benefit system in the social sector, similar to that anticipated in the private rented sector to enable people in that sector to benefit from the choice and flexibility that the reforms can provide.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1075W.]

If he said that then, why is it now such a bad idea?

[Sheila Gilmore]

It is interesting that the flat-rate housing allowance for the private rented sector should be raised. What the hon. Gentleman mentions was discussed as a possibility during the Labour Government. I was very much involved in housing, as the convenor of a housing committee in my council, and I remember that being discussed, but it was not implemented and there was a lot of opposition to the idea of doing that for the social rented sector, for all sorts of reasons. However, what the bedroom tax does is immediately say to people, whether they can move or not and whatever their circumstances are: “You may have to pay this extra money.”

To argue that discretionary housing payments are sufficient is not good enough. Even in Scotland, where the Scottish Government eventually agreed that extra money for the discretionary housing pot should kick in, there are still people who either do not know about making a claim or make a claim and do not get it, and who have to keep making claims. What the Select Committee said—I do not think this was unreasonable; we are a cross-party Committee—was that if we take the view that disabled people who have substantially adapted houses will receive long-term discretionary housing payments, which is what is always said, it would be simpler to exempt them. It would be administratively simpler, because there must be administrative costs in taking forms from people, processing them and working out whether they are still eligible. I do not think that was an unreasonable proposition. As the Government have taken so long to read our report—presumably considering it and working out whether it is workable—I hope that the Minister will stand up today and tell us that they have accepted that reasonable proposition. If he did that, we would all be extremely glad.

I want briefly to say something about the housing benefit cap. If a lot of people—this was the evidence to our Committee—are in temporary accommodation, it is utterly unreasonable to stop their benefit suddenly because they find themselves in that position. The Government are fond of saying that, as a result of the cap, people have moved out of temporary accommodation, but I suggest that it is likely that they are moving from temporary accommodation to permanent accommodation. There is a movement of people in and out of the scope of the household benefit cap, but the amount that some people are losing is very significant indeed. Again, I fear that the legislation was more symbolic than something that seriously addressed the underlying issues. If we have a lot of people receiving high amounts of benefits overall—because, for example, they are living in very expensive temporary accommodation—we need to build more affordable houses.

This is an issue north and south of the border. The Scottish Government have not been building sufficient low-cost affordable homes. The number completed in my city last year was the same as it was in 2007, which was the year that the current Scottish Administration took office. They have not been building low-rent affordable homes at an increased rate, even though they may sometimes try to say that they are. Without those homes, people will be paying excessive rents in the private rented sector, and not just in temporary accommodation. That is the issue we need to tackle.

Housing Benefit

Debate between John Hemming and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming]

Because none of those things is a fact. Lots of people are living in overcrowded situations. I see them at my Saturday advice bureau, and two people wrote to me today. Those people are looking for accommodation.

The Opposition have said that they want to cap the structural welfare budget, but if they are going to spend more money on providing free rooms for people who do not need them, where will they get the money from? Will they cut disability benefits? Today, the Opposition propose to give a special exemption to people who have been on housing benefit since 1996. If they proposed a special exemption, with valid rules, for people with disabilities who needed a spare room and to transfer that money out of the DHP, that would be worth looking at. They are picking the wrong analysis for this.

I have always managed to succeed for my constituents who needed DHP because they have disabilities and need a spare room. I have never had a problem getting DHP. As of last week, having got extra money from the Government, Birmingham’s DHP budget still contained just over £600,000. Birmingham is managing to spend that money, look after people and protect those with disabilities, and not to exhaust the budget.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Did the hon. Gentleman—he may have done—support an amendment tabled in the House of Lords and in this place that would have meant at the very least that no one should have their housing benefit cut unless they had refused a reasonable offer of a house?

[John Hemming]

With the charges for a spare room, it has taken some time to identify those people who are willing to transfer. Discretionary housing payments have been made available to people. I have seen payments for DHP go through. People come and talk to me about their personal problems, and I work to get them resolved. I do not think I voted for that amendment, but I have not checked the records so I do not know. It is important to remember that the quantum of DHP is critical. The Government have recently announced DHP for the next two financial years, and that is how we protect people with disabilities who need a spare room for one reason or another. However, it is not possible to achieve that and give this exemption or that exemption.

Business and the Economy

Debate between John Hemming and Sheila Gilmore

Monday 14th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I start by repeating something that I raised in an intervention with the Secretary of State at the outset. He repeated the oft-made claim about the number of private sector jobs that are being created in order to prove that the Government’s policy is working. In about January 2011, after just over six months in government, the Prime Minister told us that 500,000 new private sector jobs had been created by his Government. After another few months, he said that in the first year of his Government they had created 500,000 jobs. Now the Secretary of State tells us that in two years they have created 600,000 jobs. Presumably, if the 500,000 figure was correct in the first place, only 100,000 have been created in the last 18 months. At that rate of job creation, we will expect the next 18 months to give us about another 20,000 jobs. They cannot keep repeating the same jobs. The key fact here is that that 500,000, the Prime Minister’s original boast, was largely the result of the economic stimuli applied by the outgoing Labour Government. In other words, this Government have done virtually nothing to create private sector jobs, despite all their claims—claims that were repeated again today—that the public sector was crowding out the private sector and that was the problem.

I am not, on the whole, the kind of person who goes in for the Armageddon-like language that one sometimes hears on the left. In fact, I am usually irritated by it; language such as, “We are all going to hell in a handbasket” and “People will be walking in the streets without shoes.” Actually, I am beginning to wonder. At my surgery on Friday, two people came who had both been recently sanctioned as a result of disputed issues about non-attendance at the Work programme. Neither qualified for hardship payments because they do not have dependants. The only thing their local citizens advice bureau could tell them to do in the short term was to go to a food bank.

I did some research on food banks. The Trussell Trust, which many talk about as being a wonderful charity, on its website says that in 2011-12 food banks fed 128,687 people nationwide—100% more than in the previous year. It has more than 200 food banks nationally and it hopes to have one in every town. I do not think I am overly naive, but in my lifetime I thought that this sort of thing was history. I represented an area as a councillor for 16 years, which included a district that ticked all the deprivation indices boxes, and I do not recall a constituent telling me that they had had to resort to a food bank. The only food provision that I was aware of in Edinburgh then was some vans for the street homeless, but not for people who had simply found themselves unemployed.

It must give us food for thought that one of the most rapidly growing charities in our country is one providing food banks. That is not a criticism of the charity or those who volunteer for it; I am sure that they are doing an important job, which is obviously necessary. But what should make us angry is that there is a need for that.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady accept that the Trussell Trust was set up with food banks in the first Blair Government?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am not saying it was not set up then. I am giving its own information that in the year 2011-12, it increased the number of people it was helping by 100%.

One of those constituents has been sanctioned for six months. Unless she succeeds in an appeal shortly, she will not get jobseeker’s allowance until November this year. She has very little family support for circumstances in her life. Do any of us sitting here have any concept of what it is like to feel that they will have no income for that length of time? I do not think that we have any concept of what that must feel like. I have also to ask, as she does seem to have certain health and personal problems, what has happened to all the boasts about the Work programme. The Work programme was going to be so personalised. Edinburgh MPs were taken in by one of the providers and told that they would have health professionals and counsellors who would help people with complex needs. I am afraid that it does not appear to have helped that particular constituent. Someone like that is collateral damage from a Government who frequently talk as though the problem that faces this country is that there are too many people on out-of-work benefits, as if their obduracy or the fact that benefits are somehow too high is causing the economy to flatline.

Only this weekend a Scots business man, Tom Hunter, was widely quoted as saying that Scots were addicted to welfare. He had just returned from China, where the economy is booming, and explained that the biggest worry there is that people in China might suddenly decide that they wanted high levels of welfare. I find that fairly incredible. I cannot really picture the situation—Tom Hunter and, presumably, a Chinese business man discussing how the biggest threat to China’s economy is welfare—but that is what he tells us.

Apparently, it is not just workers who are not working hard enough; now their employers are not working hard enough either. We know that some of those employers are sitting on capital, but why do they not want to invest it? For those running businesses, surely the major reason why they do not want to invest their capital and earn more money is that there is no demand for their products or services. If there is no demand, we have a big problem. Simon Jenkins, writing in The Guardian on 9 May, stated:

“Europe’s collective response to the 2008 credit crunch ranks with the treaty of Versailles and German reparations among the great follies of history… Those who warned at the time that the coalition risked double-dip recession by over-suppressing demand have been proved right.”

What is the solution? Simon Jenkins, like the Opposition, thinks that the British economy needs three things: demand, demand and demand. It needs cash in pockets and cash in tills. It needs the old Keynesian salve: money in circulation. That is what our plan is about: cutting VAT, removing the cuts to tax credits in order to put money back in people’s pockets, reducing the rate of VAT on home improvements, and all those housing proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) explained so eloquently. If we put that investment into housing, we would not only give badly needed homes to the people who need them, but create the jobs that would boost demand in local economies. That is what we need to do, and there is no excuse for not doing it. In Edinburgh we have the land and the planning consents; we just need the funding.

Opportunities for the Next Generation

Debate between John Hemming and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Sometimes, I think that there is a tendency in politics to focus too much on trying to avoid tripping over the hurdles in front of us. We do not look at the horizon and see where we are going in the long term. Rather than focusing on the minute issues about the immediate policy and the motion—I oppose the motion and support Government policy—I should like to consider the longer-term issues.

It was rather sad to hear the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) criticise factory work. For my constituents, we try to maintain work at Jaguar Land Rover. Those skilled jobs give people an opportunity in life. My view of work is that people should work to live, not live to work. If people have skilled jobs or have gone to sixth form or university, they can find a house to live in, bring up a family and go on a few holidays. They have some stability in their lives. That is a positive thing to have, and it should not be downgraded as something that society should not aim to have. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made the valid point that jobs in Tesco are important. I am pleased that a Tesco will soon open in Yardley and provide people with additional jobs.

Within all this, we need security. Young people need such opportunities in the first instance. Let us put aside party politics for a moment and look at what has happened over the past 20 or 30 years. Technology has improved things in one sense—obviously, we can do a lot more with fewer people—but we do not need so many people to do what we do. The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) said that there are perhaps 1 million jobs short in the west midlands. Obviously, some people are now in education who would previously have been in work. Considering 50% growth is a thought experiment; it will not suddenly magic up massive employment. We need to consider what is happening in other countries. Rather than focusing on a relatively small number of people working many hours a week, trying to put everything together so that they can afford to buy a property, perhaps our long-term aim should be that people need not necessarily work so many hours and that the work is shared out.

We have had disadvantages with the benefits system. People have been discouraged from working part time. If they work part time, they do not qualify for benefits such as tax credits and the like. I hope that the universal credit system will enable people to say, “Actually, by balancing out work and life, I don’t necessarily have to work full time.” We could then share out the work and have greater numbers of people contributing to society and fewer people being described as NEETs. I do not like using acronyms to describe people. Perhaps people’s finances might not be so good, but if more people were in work but not necessarily working so many hours, they would have a better quality of life.

[Sheila Gilmore]

If people work fewer than 16 hours, they do not get support from tax credits. Under the universal credit system, a ceiling will be placed on people’s incomes. They will not get out of poverty as a result of those proposals.

[John Hemming]

I am trying to move on from just being party political about the next few minutes’ policies. If we want to design a society—okay, I do not believe in centralised state management—we should consider our objectives. If our society is to be one in which a greater proportion of people participate in its operation, we do not need to discourage people from working only two days a week, which is what the hon. Lady was referring to. That issue needs to be looked at.

We cannot just solve things with economic growth. In practice, there are limits to the resources available for growth. As colleagues might be aware, I chair the all-party group on peak oil and gas. Putting aside climate change, there are constraints on the availability of fossil fuels and limits to the extent to which we can increase consumption. When we look at obesity in society—perhaps I am a good example—we should consider whether we need to increase consumption.

There is a wider view. We need to look critically at what we are doing in the long term. In the short term, we have to deal with the deficit; there is no question about that. If we do not, interest rates will go up, and we will end up in a situation similar to that of Greece, or various other countries that face serious financial problems. However, in the long term, our objective has to be a society in which everybody participates; in which we work to live, rather than live to work; and in which we try to involve everyone. We cannot do it with a command-economy approach, but we need to support people in doing what they can and working part time, rather than penalising them for that.

I think that I have, in less than six minutes, managed to make my point, so I leave the Floor to other hon. Members.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Debate between John Hemming and Sheila Gilmore

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming]

The hon. Lady is entirely right. If we do not deal with the deficit, we face many other problems. We will end up paying a higher interest rate on sovereign debt. At the moment we are doing quite well, with an interest rate of about 3.5%. Before the bail-out, the Irish were being charged about 8% and the Greeks are being charged about 11%. When a country has a large deficit, if that country does not take action, not only does the amount of debt go up but so does the rate of interest.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In April, the leader of the Liberal Democrats said that big cuts would be extremely dangerous. Did the hon. Gentleman agree with him then? If he does not agree with that now, when did he change his mind?

[John Hemming]

That might be slightly out of order, but I should probably answer the question. There has been a debate about the £6 billion of cuts in this financial year. At about 4% of the overall deficit, £6 billion is not a large sum, but given what happened with the initial sovereign debt crises during the general election—things that we have to be aware of, such as what was going on in Greece—we need to give the message that we are serious about dealing with the deficit. That is a socially progressive policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming]

The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that there was a sovereign debt crisis in Greece and that we need to learn from circumstances. If we do not do so, we will face great difficulties. We have a saving of some £100 million-plus on a scheme viewed by independent experts as not being the best way to use that money. There is no independent evidence that it even achieved its objective, save perhaps for reducing the amount of money people spent on restaurant bills when eating outside the home or on takeaways. That is what the IFS drew our attention to at the evidence session. If we are serious—and we are—about ensuring that the Government keep the interest rate on sovereign debt down so that we avoid ending up with the problems of Greece or Ireland, we must take that into account.

Yes, I accept there is a job to be done: we need to look after people on lower incomes and ensure that they have access to funding systems so they can balance their finances when they incur higher expenditure. We also need to encourage people to save where appropriate, but it is not always appropriate to do so. As I mentioned, the Royal College of Midwives said that a mother who has just given birth should not be concentrating on saving all her money; she needs to focus on eating well. On that basis, the proposals represent an entirely sensible and reasonable way of reducing the amount of money that the country has to borrow.

[Sheila Gilmore]

First, the selection of evidence we have heard from the Committee sittings is very limited, particularly from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming). Other people giving evidence explained exactly how helpful the saving gateway scheme had been in its pilot phases and could be in the future. Mark Lyonette of the credit union movement said how important saving was, not only because of the money actually saved, but because of

“what it does to people’s confidence that they have… a few hundred pounds built up over a year or two. It gives them some sense that they are more in control. They will have credit commitments at the same time, but it is really important to feel that there is something of a buffer. Whether through the savings gateway or some other initiative, we think that the Government can encourage—and needs to encourage—more people to get that better balance between what savings they have, however small, and their credit.”––[Official Report, Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Public Bill Committee, 2 November 2010; c. 49, Q143.]

Yes, he also said that the saving gateway was not the only way to generate savings for the credit unions, but when asked whether it would make an important contribution he said “Yes, absolutely,” it would.

I did not quite understand the rhododendrons reference of the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), but he seemed to suggest that we believed that a scheme like this was “the answer” to deprivation and poverty. That is obviously nonsense. We are not suggesting that and we never have suggested it. It is one part of a whole jigsaw of provision that has to be put in place. It is that part of the jigsaw that needs to look forward to two things: first, questions of asset inequality; and, secondly, long-term solutions where people begin to change their behaviour and build up some assets for themselves.