Disability Allowance

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Yet again, we have an example of how not to do welfare reform—if indeed that is the intent. The Government have attempted to pray in aid the fact that the Opposition had said that they were willing to consider reforming DLA. However, I thought that that meant looking at the benefit in the round, examining how it operates, and assessing what needs to change and what can be done better. I did not think that it was about picking out one brick without looking at the way in which the whole benefit operates. From my perspective—and, I am certain, that of my whole party—that was what we meant when we suggested that we were open to considering changes in DLA.

We are considering something that was clearly proposed as a saving—or a cut. It is about reaching that £18 billion figure, which was why it was announced in the comprehensive spending review rather than as a part of welfare reform. Having decided to do that—ex post facto—all sorts of things are then presented as to why it might be done, why something could be done better and why there may be money somewhere else.

A similar thing happened during the proceedings of the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Public Bill Committee, of which I was a member. Having decided to make a series of reductions, a number of reasons were suddenly conjured out of the air, and then a whole host of ideas was proposed to find the money to make up for some of the cuts, but those ideas were not costed or fully thought through. The Government were not even able to say whether those proposals would cost more than the savings that were being suggested.

As someone who comes from Scotland, I want to know what consultation has gone on with the Scottish Government. What consultation has been carried out with local authorities in Scotland? I can assure the Minister that, over the past three years, my local authority has already seen substantial reductions in the money going into social care. I have several constituents whose direct payments, which they were receiving from the local authority, have been cut substantially. In some cases, “substantially” means halved. Such cuts have largely come about because of the financial constraints under which the council has found itself. Yes, the cuts have been dressed up in terms of my constituents’ personal needs, but as their needs and capacities have not changed at all, it is clear that this is really about making savings. I am not confident that my local authority has the resource to put this in as a substitute for removing DLA when it is already making so many cuts, and that is before the even further reductions in local authority spending that are coming our way in Scotland and elsewhere.

Moreover, it is important to consult. The Government should not make a decision and then wait for people to react. I heard the Secretary of State for Health talking on Radio 4 this morning about the importance of consultation over public health matters. He was discussing whether to implement the regulation on tobacco and the display of tobacco. He said that it was very important to consult, but if it is so important to consult even on something that has already been passed and subjected to consultation, why is it not important properly to consult the users, care homes, local authorities and the devolved Administrations that are all involved in this change? If it was then felt that there was a need to consider the way in which the benefit is provided and that was better for it to come down the local authority route, so be it, but I do not think that that is why we have got to this position.

[Dr Whiteford]

The mobility component of the DLA is one of the few parts of the benefit system to which personalisation already applies. Does the hon. Lady not agree that the Government’s proposals will take away that aspect of the personalisation agenda at the very time they are talking about promoting it?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I certainly agree and, as I have said, I have seen some of that personalised agenda being placed at risk in other ways over recent months, which is a substantial concern, especially to the recipients of this component.

I think that we have an opportunity to look again at the proposal and to get it right, if it is genuinely thought to be necessary to fund this scheme differently. However, if it is being seriously suggested that this change can be made—it involves a substantial sum for an individual, but the collective cost of any substitution will be very substantial for a local authority—and if the Government will ensure that it is made, I would ask whether there is a costing of how much will be involved in monitoring the change, in checking that it is made and in managing that whole process, when in fact the system appears to be working well.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I thank all hon. Members for coming to this debate and for taking the time to voice their concerns and their constituents’ thoughts about the measure. In particular, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing this debate. At the beginning of his remarks, he called for clarity, which is exactly what the measure is designed to address and deliver. I hope that he will be able to see that in my comments.

We as a Government owe a duty to disabled people to promote their independence and equality, but we also owe a duty to the country to ensure that we have the right governance in place to deliver support efficiently and sensibly. The problem is that we inherited a system that some might say is not fit for purpose. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) called for a full reassessment, not piecemeal reform, of disability living allowance. I reassure her that that is exactly what we are doing, and I hope that we will have her support when we introduce our full measures in the coming months.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I want to make it clear that our support depends, obviously, on the contents of those measures. This policy appears to be a piecemeal measure.

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I can say to her that we will shortly be consulting in full on this and other measures on disability living allowance. Hon. Members, their constituents and interested parties will have a full opportunity to give their thoughts and see the measures that we are introducing.

Across the spectrum of disability living allowance, we see overlaps, duplication and gaps in provision created by a series of opaque, confusing and inefficient systems. The debate has highlighted just how out of kilter the current system is, with different payment streams and delivery mechanisms spanning different lines of departmental responsibility. We have to address the underlying issues, which is why we are proposing major disability living allowance reform. That is the only way we can ensure that the clarity we need is put in place.

Housing Benefit (West Ham)

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

With respect, the hon. Lady is conflating about three different changes. The universal credit is nothing to do with the cap. It is a separate proposition, and the details are yet to be announced. We have already announced exemptions, and people in work who receive working tax credit will not face the cap at all. That is part of the response to her point. No one in work and receiving working tax credit will be affected by the overall benefit cap, nor will anyone on disability living allowance, but the details have yet to be worked out. The universal credit—not the universal cap—is a separate reform designed precisely to address the points that she raises.

I shall try to respond to some of the more specific issues that the hon. Lady raised about her constituency. Our estimate is that in her borough of Newham, 32% of properties in the private rented sector will be available to people on local housing allowance.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

I have only six minutes left in which to respond to the hon. Lady, and it is probably important to do that rather than to respond to another hon. Member.

I have explained our broad estimate. A good proportion of rental properties will be available throughout the borough, but I agree that we do not want constant moves. No one wants that. The challenge is to ensure that when people enter a tenancy agreement they do so sustainably. All we are trying to do is to ensure that the choices made by people on benefit at the start of a tenancy, when they choose a property and a rent, involve the same constraints as for someone in low-paid work. The change is not designed to be penal; it is designed to be fair and equal. That is the idea.

The hon. Lady cited a figure of 82,000 people being at risk of losing their home, but that was based on London Councils research and not that of the Department for Work and Pensions, and it was based on a fairly low response rate from landlords. Moreover, landlords are bound to say that they do not want any reform that is going to cap what they get. Landlords have been the principal beneficiaries of the local housing allowance system. We have already seen private sector rents falling in the past 18 months, yet the rents paid to people on LHA have been going up. Through housing benefit and LHA, we are putting more than £21 billion a year into that market, and it would be implausible to suggest that we are not having an effect on it.

We believe in trying to restrain the growth in rents, although in four years’ time, we will still be spending more in cash terms on housing benefits than we are this year. I think that the hon. Lady used the term “swingeing cuts” about something else, but these are not swingeing cuts. This is about restraining the rate of growth of housing benefit, so it is a far more modest reform than she suggests.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of slum landlords, for whom we have no time, and one of the things we want to do is to change landlord behaviour, which is crucial. We are considering whether, by paying housing benefit directly to landlords, we could use that leverage to try to get rents down. Yes, some people might face shortfalls—I accept that point, although I think that the figures might sometimes be exaggerated—but we are not in a static situation. The question is: what happens next? If landlords, particularly those renting to housing benefit and LHA tenants, see that we are not simply going to follow the market up, that could change rent-setting behaviour.

The hon. Lady made a point about the consumer prices index, and about the way in which we are going to index LHA in the future. Her view seemed to be that we should simply follow the market, but we think that that has been the biggest problem with LHA over the years. We have actually stoked up the market, and then increased LHA to keep pace with the market, so that rents keep rising. We are not getting good quality accommodation, however; we are simply driving up rents, and that is not what we want to spend public money on.

I want to come back to the hon. Lady’s point about constant moves and people being constantly moved around an area. Clearly, there is an issue about the transition to the new regime, and we are trebling the discretionary housing payment system. More of that money will go to boroughs such as her own and to other inner London boroughs that are most affected, because we want the particularly hard cases, where people are particularly affected by the changes, to have extra resources to deal with that. However, the long-term goal has to be to try to get rent levels under control, rather than to keep stoking them up.

The hon. Lady referred in the debate in 2008 to the impact of high rents in temporary accommodation. She said:

“My constituents are virtually imprisoned by the excessively high rents charged for temporary accommodation”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 293.]

She was absolutely right, and in April 2010, a cap was introduced on the rents in temporary accommodation. Since then, the early evidence has shown that the rents in those properties have started to fall, so we have a precedent for what we are doing now. This is not nationwide, systematic evidence, but the early evidence suggests that what we are saying will happen in the wider market is already happening in the temporary accommodation market. That is what we as taxpayers, and as people who are concerned about our constituents, want to see. We want to see more of our money providing accommodation for people, and less of it simply stoking up the private rented sector.

The hon. Lady also raised the issue of the changes to non-dependant deductions. They have been frozen for a number of years instead of being indexed, which would have been a more natural policy, and all we are doing is returning them to the level at which they would have been, had they been indexed. So, yes, there is an increase, but we are simply taking them back to their real value of a few years ago. She mentioned the consumer prices index being applied for ever, but that is not the intention. It will come into the LHA rates in 2013 for two years, and we will then look at the market and the impact of the changes that have been made. So we are trying to introduce a cap and to restrain the rate of growth of rents, but we are trying to do that with some flexibility. We will look at the broad rental market areas when we do that and try to ensure that they fit the local housing market situation.

I want to try to draw some of those threads together. First, it is vital that we do not overstate the impact of the changes. There will be an impact, but some of the numbers that get thrown around, such as 82,000, are an exaggeration. We will see what impact they have, and there is the possibility of different rent levels as a result of the changes. There are also discretionary housing payments. The idea is to get good value for the taxpayer, but not to cause misery for the hon. Lady’s constituents. That is not our intention, and I do not believe that we will do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Welfare Reform

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is right about travel costs. The key point is that if someone going to work retains significantly more money, their travel-to-work costs become much more affordable. Therefore they are able, as other people in work do, to make decisions about travelling to a job over a slightly longer distance. That will be wholly beneficial to those who are out of work.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In his statement, the Secretary of State used the fact that 37% of ESA claimants did not proceed to full assessment to insinuate that people were withdrawing their claims because they were trying to cheat the system. Current ESA claimants are people who have newly fallen sick, and they are not long-term claimants. Most of them recover from their illnesses during the assessment period and get back into work, so I ask the Secretary of State to withdraw that assertion.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I made no such assertion. What I was demonstrating was that if you put a check in place and ask people to demonstrate their situation, those who are bent on a different purpose will naturally fall out. I used the last Government’s work capability assessment programme to illustrate how that affects new entrants. I was by no means casting aspersions on anybody who is going through the programme, because they deserve what they get.

Housing Benefit

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

Let me address some of the specifics. We are talking about putting a cap of £250 a week on the proposed maximum for a one-bedroom flat. That would amount to £12,000 a year to be spent on rent. I am afraid that not many people who are working can afford to spend £12,000 on rent.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In the event that the problem is as the hon. Lady describes it, can she explain to my constituents why they are having their housing benefit reduced when the cap has no relevance whatsoever to people in Edinburgh because all the rents are well below it? Despite that, they will have their LHA reduced to the 30th percentile. Others, who are not necessarily in the private rented sector, will have non-dependants deductions from their housing benefit increased substantially, which is a serious problem for many low-income households. Why is that justifiable to solve the problem of high rents in London? Why not deal with London on its own?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

It is justifiable because this country simply cannot afford the level of welfare benefits that we are paying out. It is all very well to say that this is all about London, but it is not; it is about the fact that people who are working hard are having to pay higher taxes to pay the bills that Labour left for us to sort out.

We have a system of housing support that is no longer fit for purpose. Housing benefit should act as a safety net to support people who need it—I think we would all agree with that—but it should not provide a subsidy for people to live beyond their means, by which I mean beyond the scope of what they could potentially earn. For those who are jobless, it is clear that this level of subsidy encourages benefits claimants to become trapped in dependency. If we are really going to reform benefits so that work is rewarded rather than penalised, we have to build in incentives that do not encourage people just to sit back and collect their benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burley]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that housing benefit expenditure ballooned from £11 billion in 1999 to £20 billion 10 years later, and is forecast to reach £25 billion by 2015. The Prime Minister would agree with me that the country simply can no longer afford that. We cannot go on like this, spending £25 billion a year on housing benefit.

I wish to leave for a moment the necessity argument and the fact that we have to make these changes. Even if we were in the boom years, they would be necessary purely on the grounds of fairness. They are all about fairness, but the problem with the word “fairness” in political debate is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is no single agreed definition of what is fair. Everybody in the House defines it in their own way. For Opposition Members—I respect them for it—it is about redistribution of income. It is about taxing the rich more and throwing more money at the poor. For us, it might be about fairer taxes or rewarding hard work and playing by the rules. Fairness is about being able to keep more of what one earns.

What I wish to add to the debate is what we believe is fair when it comes to housing benefit. I will start with a few basic questions of principle. Is it fair that hard-working individuals and families in this country should subsidise people living in properties that they have no realistic chance of ever affording to live in? Is it fair that when the average salary in this country is £22,000 a year, some people, as we have heard, can claim more than £100,000 a year just for their rent? Is it fair that even under the proposed cap of £20,000 a year, a person would still need to earn about £80,000 just to have that disposable income for their rent? Is it fair that the cap is being set so high? If the average salary in this country is £22,000, the cap should actually be about £7,000 a year.

[Sheila Gilmore]

If the real aim is to reduce the housing benefit bill, will the hon. Gentleman explain why his Government propose to change the way in which houses, for both councils and housing associations, are built? The tenants will be paying for the cost of building houses and rents will rise to 80% of market rents, which will put up the housing benefit bill. If that is the hon. Gentleman’s key objective, how does that help us to reduce the housing benefit bill?

[Mr Burley]

The hon. Lady should have listened to what I said. Our point is that it is not just about reducing the housing benefit bill, but the issue of fairness. We need to go back to the first principles in this debate and decide what is a fair amount for the working majority to pay towards those who do not, cannot or will not work. What is fair? The average annual earnings in my constituency is £25,279 a year.

[Mr Burley]

That is precisely my point. People in Cannock Chase who earn £25,279 a year would frankly love to have £20,000 to spend on housing from an equivalent annual salary of £80,000, because that is what it equates to. That is dreamland for them. They have never earned £80,000 a year, so why should they be paying out of their hard-earned taxes for some people to have the equivalent of a salary of a quarter of a million pounds so that they can live in parts of London that have some of the most expensive postcodes on Earth.

[Sheila Gilmore]

If the problem is about households with very high rents, why not tackle that problem? Perhaps we could build more affordable houses in London. Why not solve the problem in a phased way? Housing benefit changes will be made all over the country and 30% of housing benefit recipients in my city are at work. Why are they being punished because there is a problem? Why not just solve the problem? The hon. Gentleman has spoken very eloquently on it.

[Mr Burley]

I agree with the hon. Lady on the need for a regional cap. Funnily enough, some of the work that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has done on regional caps for MPs should be considered. In my constituency, the IPSA cap to claim is £700 a month. That is what IPSA thinks is a reasonable rent for an MP and his family to claim to live in Cannock Chase. Yet under the housing benefit rules, a person can claim £1,600 a month, which is more than double what IPSA thinks is fair for an MP. How is that fair?

The charity Shelter, which has been guilty of some terrible scaremongering, has claimed that up to 80,000 people will be made homeless by the plans. It falls to it to redefine its ludicrous definition of homelessness, which includes two teenage children living in the same bedroom. That is hardly the definition of homelessness that most people in this country would understand. For most, homelessness is about someone not having a roof over their head. Even according to Shelter’s own briefing, the average loss in my constituency will be £30 a month—£7.50 a week. The total number of claimants in Cannock Chase is 10,278. Therefore, one eighth of my constituency—it is a very poor working-class constituency that used to have 52 coal mines—will have to adjust their weekly outgoings by less than a tenner. Is that really a reason to speak of weeping children, social cleansing, Highland clearances, or, worst of all, as Polly Toynbee said, a “final solution” for the poor? She somehow compared capping housing benefit to £20,000 a year to the extermination of 6 million Jews. The left has engaged in disgusting language and it should be thoroughly ashamed.

If anything, these reforms do not go far enough for me. Let me finish by saying that as a country we must start to live within our means. We need to even up the benefit that a person gets from working with the benefit that a person gets from the Government. Yes, the changes are about saving money, but they are also about fairness. It is simply not fair that people on low incomes in my constituency, in which the average income is 25 grand a year, should pay their taxes to subsidise those who want to live in some of the richest postcodes in this country, where a person would need a salary of £250,000 to afford them. That is not fair and neither is the Opposition’s motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Any organisation facing an item of expenditure that has increased by 80% over 10 years would consider it a matter for attention, so it is entirely appropriate that the Government have been looking at housing benefit, given that expenditure there has increased from £11 billion in 1999 to £20 billion in 2009, and it is predicted that, without the reforms the Government are bringing forward, that figure would rise to £25 billion in 2014. As the Minister reminded us earlier, that is £1,500 per working family. Labour did nothing about the situation during 13 years in government, despite the anxieties of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), although it was recognised by Labour in its 2010 Budget and is accepted in this motion. The question, therefore, is not whether we should act, but how we should act.

The situation today arose from the freeing up of the private rented sector by the Conservative Government in the 1980s. People were freed from the state as the only provider of affordable housing, and new, assured short-hold tenancies massively increased the private rented stock—a stock of property that was barely in existence up until that point. That measure gave greater choice to tenants and increased mobility, but it became clear that if people’s circumstances changed, or they were unable to remain in their homes, a new form of support would be needed. However, that support has got out of control. In addition, the system has introduced unforeseen consequences, because the payment of housing benefit has caused rents to rise higher than they would otherwise have done. There are 3.3 million rented properties in the UK, and 1.2 million tenants receive this benefit. That is more than one third of the total, and has a massive effect in the market for rented properties.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that according to two recent research reports—the Rugg report in England, and another conducted in Scotland for the Scottish Government—the proportion of those in the private rented sector on housing benefit was less than 20%. In Scotland, it was 17%. That report was published last year—not a long time ago. Of that 17%, only 8% were on full housing benefit, 6% had half paid, and 3% had less than half paid. Those are the actual figures from research. It is important that we have this published research, and that Government Members are aware of it.

[Mark Pawsey]

I am referring to the UK as a whole, and I will go on to show how the current system has driven rents up. When councils make their rates available, landlords use them as a benchmark for the rents they charge, knowing that a proportion of tenants will be able to pay and will not contest the level. The recipients of housing benefit are happy to accept whatever a landlord asks for, because they know that the state will pay. That contrasts with the position of private tenants, paying rent out of their earned income, who will be keen to negotiate the best rent they can. These higher rents might be good for landlords, but that does nothing to help people who are not in work to find work. In fact, the reverse can apply, because it can discourage claimants from taking low-paid employment or from working longer hours, because if they do so, their benefit entitlement might be lost, and the mobility introduced by the sector might be reduced.

It is worthwhile remembering—sometimes the Labour party seems to forget—that the benefits paid to recipients come out of the taxes paid by hard-working families. A number of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to that. Often, they are the kind of people who look with envy at the kind of housing enjoyed by some recipients of housing benefit. The new system will make things fairer.

We have heard a great deal today about the effect on people living in London, and some Government Members could be excused for thinking that this is a London-only issue. In my constituency, however, a terraced house costs £550 per month to rent, so some of the sums spoken about, such as the family cap of £26,000—more than many people in my constituency earn in a year—are out of this world to the average resident in my constituency. They fail to understand why such sums should be made available.

Concern has also been expressed about the effect of the new rules on availability of properties for people in receipt of housing benefits. I believe that landlords will have to become more realistic in the rents they accept. They will have to accept a lower return than they enjoy now. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) spoke about landlords enjoying a return of 12%. There is no reason residential landlords should receive a disproportionately higher rate of return at the expense of the state. In order to improve returns, those who are committed to this sector for the long term and who continue to acquire properties in the future will not be willing to pay capital prices at the level they have done previously. That will exert downward pressure on the price of housing, making housing more generally more affordable, and, as a side effect, benefiting many people struggling to make a start on the housing ladder.

Increasing the supply of housing more broadly will be another important factor as the coalition deals with the Labour party’s failure to build enough homes. Last year, fewer homes were completed than in any time for a generation, and today’s housing reforms need not be seen in isolation when it comes to providing support for those in need of housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Sorry; the shadow Secretary of State is disowning the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who got it wrong. In 2014-15 the housing benefit budget will have been “slashed” from £21.5 billion to £22 billion. We are not slashing. We are making changes.

It has been said that we are being too hasty. The Labour party has decided that after 13 years of making the problem worse, doing something about it is “hasty”. Labour was so unhasty that it never got round to doing anything about the problem before it lost office. We are getting a grip.

First, we have established that the impact of the changes has been grossly exaggerated. Secondly, we have established that rents will not stay as they are. During the debate it has been suggested that the fact that the British taxpayer is putting more than £20 billion a year into housing benefit has no impact on the market. We, the taxpayers, pay housing benefit towards 40% of private rented tenancies. It is a long time since I studied economics, but I reckon if we pay for 40% of the tenancies and we put £20 billion a year into the market, we might just be having some impact.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The hon. Gentleman is using the figure of 40%. Recent research done both in Scotland and England is completely different. It produces a figure of 20%. In fact, in Scotland it was 17%; the report was produced for the Scottish Government. Only 8% of that was for housing benefit. We need to see the evidence that differs from the research that the Government themselves commissioned.

[Steve Webb]

I am not sure what the hon. Lady is questioning. Some 40% of private rented sector tenancies have housing benefit. That is a fact.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out earlier, people have said in this debate that rents will not fall. There is an assumption that rents have to go up. I have news for those people: since November 2008 private sector rents have fallen by 5%, while LHA rents have risen by 3%. So there is a void. That is further evidence. Opposition Members have asked for evidence, and here is clear evidence that LHA is driving up rents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

That is precisely the kind of negative politicking that I hope we will not have from the Opposition over the next few months. I believe, and I think that most Members believe, that people with long-term health problems are better off being helped back into the workplace, if possible. They are better off than they would be if they spent a lifetime on benefits, and that is what all the charities that work with them also say to us. I want to do the right thing by those people, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House will unite behind a programme designed to deliver that.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Contrary to the Minister’s earlier assertion that our Government did nothing to deal with incapacity benefit, I must say that that is clearly not the case, because all of us will have heard our constituents’ experience of the work capability test. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) mentioned some of the problems, and one issue that some of my constituents have raised is that written reports from their doctors or other people are not taken into account at all; the assessment is based simply on the test carried out by the company in question. Will the Minister agree to allow written documentation as part of the test?

Housing Benefit

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Bob Russell]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct about the inheritance of the new Labour Government, but that makes their concentration on one aspect of housing just as bad. I am not saying anything new; these are points that, as Hansard will confirm, I put to the then Prime Ministers Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), as well as to Prescott when he was in charge of council housing—or rather non-council housing.

In the years of plenty when the economy was thriving, new Labour should have emulated what Clement Attlee did in 1945 after six years of war: introduced a house building programme to house the poorest people in the land. It did not do that. The poorest people were among those the party turned its back on, which is why it lost 5 million votes at the last general election.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I agree that we should have built more houses—I have always said that—but is the solution to this problem to introduce changes to housing benefit that will affect current tenants and will not result in any more houses being built? The savings generated by the cuts will not be ploughed back into building housing, which might have made such cuts more tolerable, so how can these changes be justified on the basis that not enough houses have been built?

[Bob Russell]

If the hon. Lady had been paying attention, she would have noticed that I opened my remarks by saying that I am not speaking in defence of the coalition Government’s proposals—anything but. I am just setting the scene by pointing out that the problems are inherited. I do not agree with how the matter is being dealt with, but Her Majesty’s official Opposition should not come here today and pretend that they are the saviours of the social housing market, given that the record shows that they built only—let me repeat the figures—6,470 council houses in 13 years, in contrast with the previous Conservative Government, who built 507,200 in their first 13 years.

Let me now say that I do not agree with the proposals on housing benefit. I know that the Minister will be aware of them, but I draw his attention to the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke—particularly Matthew chapter 19, verses 13 to 15, Mark chapter 10, verses 14 to 15, and Luke chapter 18, verses 15 to 17, which includes the phrase “suffer little children.” I do not want this coalition Government to make children suffer, but that is what will happen as a result of the proposals on housing benefit. I wish to put it on the record that I have already initiated one debate on child poverty in this Chamber since the general election. Another record for the previous Labour Government is that they left 3.9 million children living below the official poverty line. What an appalling legacy. I do not want that figure to increase; I want it to be eliminated.

I am grateful to the Local Government Group, particularly Mr Ben Kind—the public affairs and campaigns manager—for sending me a briefing in advance of today’s debate. That document states:

“The housing benefit measures announced in the June 2010 budget, including capping local housing allowance rates, paid to tenants in the private sector, and setting them based on the 30^th percentile of local rents, are likely to increase homelessness costs, since they will diminish the willingness of private rented sector landlords to let to housing benefit customers. This will have hugely variable and disproportionate effects on different parts of the country.”

On the local housing allowance, the briefing points out:

“Councils will continue to have a duty to house those who are homeless and this will be a challenge to council homelessness budgets. Although the precise extra cost is still hard to estimate, temporary accommodation costs seem certain to be higher.”

I know that from my own constituency of Colchester. It is a relatively prosperous town in a relatively prosperous part of the country, but there are pockets of deprivation. The simple fact is that housing a homeless family is far more expensive for the public purse than putting them in a proper, decent house.

I refer colleagues to the full debate that I had on child poverty, in relation to which I was contacted by the Child Poverty Action Group. In that debate, I pointed out that it is no good for any Government, either this Government or the previous Government, to come up with wondrous schemes and policies for the betterment of people if the basic pieces of the jigsaw—the framework and the corners—are not in place. Such a basic building block is a house. If children do not have decent housing, the rest of the Government’s proposals are almost meaningless.

Social housing is already extremely scarce—I have mentioned the failures of the previous Labour Government—and an increase in the number of people who are priced out of privately rented housing will place additional demands on housing stock. Meanwhile, the increase in the non-dependant deduction could have a negative effect on family and community stability to the extent that young adults feel that they have to move out of the family home. That could have the adverse effect of encouraging the concealment of the presence of and incomes of some family members, which will add to the level of fraud and error in the system.

I do not wish to defend the relatively small number of people in society who abuse the system. Unfortunately, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail think that everybody on housing benefit is abusing the system. The minority who do are destroying the case for genuine people who are not defrauding the system, but who are depicted as scroungers. Of course, we need to tackle that problem, but we must not alter the whole system to deal with just a few scroungers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is important to realise that issues to do with housing benefit do not just apply in London. I acknowledge that problems in London are great—far greater than in many other places—but the suggested housing benefit reforms will affect other parts of the country in ways that are similar, if not quite so grotesque.

In Edinburgh we will not be affected by the proposed cap. The local housing allowance is already beneath that cap. However, the decision to restrict the LHA to the 30th percentile will affect us, as will the decision to up-rate not according to what the market is doing, but according to the consumer prices index. The proposals will have an effect on the kinds of homes that people can find.

As it is, many people in Edinburgh who are receiving housing benefit or local housing allowance already meet a shortfall on their rent. Housing benefit is not just for people who are out of work, as some of the propaganda would suggest. Many people work and are able to stay in their homes only because housing benefit is available to them, even if it tapers off. Many people are already paying an excess out of their limited incomes because they have not been able to find anywhere else within the LHA. The number of people in that situation will rise. That is a substantial financial difficulty. Some of my constituents are paying £10 or £15 a week out of a limited income just to top up their rent payments. That problem will become greater.

I live in a city with a large private rented sector. It is not as large as in Islington, but 20% of all households are in the private rented sector, which in Scottish terms is high. At the moment, around 18% of private rented sector properties are occupied by people who receive some housing benefit. There is ample scope for landlords, if they no longer wish to have tenants on housing benefit because of the lower local housing allowance, to find other tenants. There is a huge shortage of properties in the city and plenty of other people to fill them without landlords reducing rents. We are a high-cost city and a high-rented city. Students and young people will be able to occupy such properties; perhaps if they are sharing, they will be able to pay the high rents that a household could not meet.

There are other practical issues for people who must move that are not always taken into account. Some of us forget—I had almost forgotten until recently when someone came to see me and told me that she must move—the difficulty of finding a deposit. There are schemes to help people to provide a deposit, but they are limited and those in Edinburgh are very limited. For many people, finding enough money for a deposit to enable them to move is a huge issue. Many of us may believe that it is not that big a deal, but to find £400, £500 or £600 for a deposit, which may be low by London standards, is a lot of money for some people. There are practical issues that make it difficult for people to contemplate moving.

[Glenda Jackson]

The obverse is touched upon by one of the briefings from Citizens Advice. For example, in Brent, if a tenant, because of the changes in housing benefit, finds it impossible to pay their rent and loses their tenancy, they will also lose their deposit because the tenancy agreement is broken before the due date. The landlord wins all round.

[Sheila Gilmore]

That worsens the position.

In Edinburgh, if people with homes in the private rented sector, whether they are in work or not, can no longer afford such homes because they do not receive housing benefit, they will come to the council for help with housing. The council has already entered into lease agreements with landlords for around 1,500 to 1,700 properties to provide accommodation for people who have presented as being homeless. They are outside the local housing authority, and the rent levels are extremely high, which is a serious problem. That was intended to be a temporary expedient, but it has been temporary for five years, and the council has recently entered into another contract because it has little choice. The LHA cap will not apply, but if more people go into such accommodation and the council must take on more private leases to cover the situation, the real bill for housing benefit—we are always being told about the huge total of housing benefit—will be squeezed from one end and will push up at the other end. There will be unintended consequences.

Labour Members recognise that some of the changes and reforms, sometimes well intentioned, have had unintended consequences, and that should be taken into account before the changes go ahead. At the end of the day, the total housing benefit bill may not fall, despite the changes that will badly affect individuals, households and families. It is not good enough to say, “You didn’t do enough about building housing, so we must do this.” If the solution is to build more houses, build more houses. We did that, although they may not all have been council houses, as the Scottish National party said. It came to power saying that it was dreadful that we had not built any council houses, and that it would do so, but the total number built was exactly the same because it gave a little money to councils to build council houses but it took it away from housing associations that were building houses; the global figure did not change.

The answer is not to punish people for the failure of a policy. That is perverse. If there were even a suggestion that some of the money saved would go towards building houses, at least there would be some purpose in the argument, but I do not believe that that will happen. We have had no such assurances. From a perspective much further north than London, I agree with my hon. Friends that the reform is bad and will affect my constituents. I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider.

Welfare Reform

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. I can guarantee to him that we have already been doing that, but we will continue to do so. That is why the independent panel, which includes somebody from Mind, will review it. Mr Farmer has been tasked with reviewing that generally, as well. We will constantly keep this under review and ensure that that is the case. We do not want to use this to punish people; it is about helping people, not punishing them.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Given the large number of my constituents and many others who had problems with the work capability test under the previous system, can the Secretary of State assure us that he has already reviewed the test prior to rolling out the new pilots, rather than leaving it as it is and piloting yet again? What full report is there on the outcomes of the system thus far? In Scotland, the Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux published a report that was highly critical of the system that was in place. Although a lot of us agree with it in principle, we know that when it comes to individual people the situation is very different.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I guarantee that we have already reviewed the matter. Indeed, we inherited a review process, which the previous Government initiated. We will bind in the results of that—we are doing that at the moment. Having said that, we have subsequently set up the panel and asked somebody to investigate to ensure that we are covering all the necessary matters. The two pilots will help us understand better the way that the system works. I am not sure what else we can do at this stage. As I said to the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), we intend to use what we are discussing as a process—it is not an end point, but a process that allows us to get the best out of how we deal with those who have been on incapacity benefit and need our support and help to get back to work. I give that guarantee.

Jobs and the Unemployed

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate.

In the few weeks that I have been here, it feels a little as though I have walked into an Alice in Wonderland world where everything has been turned on its head. A lot of myth-making has been going on. If one says something often enough, even if it is not true, people will come to believe it. I have to say, as somebody who studied history, that we need to ask what sort of regimes are particularly good at doing that. I trust, and I am sure, that my constituents will not fall for these myths.

So what are the myths? Myth No. 1, which concerns a terribly important issue, is that Labour causes unemployment. Let us take 1997, and let us take 2010, after a major recession, and then allege that during the course of the Labour Government we have had high unemployment. If my constituents were asked which were the recent periods of long unemployment, they would not say the period from 1997 to 2008 but the periods of the 1980s and the 1990s—they know that full well. By the mid-part of this decade, we had reached a position in Edinburgh whereby unemployment had been virtually reduced to a hard-core minimum. We had a very healthy economy for all that time, so it is simply not true to suggest that we have had a period of Labour Government with high unemployment.

Neither is it true that we have the highest unemployment figures in Europe—I do not know where that that comes from. A year ago, my cousin from Spain came to visit and told me that he was very worried because Spain’s unemployment stood at 19% or 20%. That myth about our unemployment figures is another one that we must destroy.

Public support and funding makes a lot of the economic development in the Edinburgh area possible, but the Tory view is that public spending is a drag on, rather than an encouragement to, the economy. For example, the public spending and support we put into a wave power project in Leith docks—£4 million of public spending in past year—will create lots of employment, but nothing would have happened without that degree of public support. The offshore wind projects in the River Forth would not have happened without public support.

During the election campaign, a construction engineer in my constituency told me that he was seriously worried about school building projects drying up, because his firm had been associated with those nationally and in Scotland for all the years of the previous Labour Government. However, in 2007, the Scottish Government came under the control of the Scottish National party. They chose—they were not forced—not to use public-private partnership, which was Labour’s funding mechanism. As a result, they have been unable to start a single new school in my area, because they have not come up with another form of funding, meaning that my constituents’ employment prospects are much diminished. That was before public funding was cut further. If that construction engineer—he has always worked in the private sector—were asked whether he could manage without the public sector, he would say no.

Another big myth that is being perpetrated is that increased funding for welfare spending—I do not particularly like that term—means that it is all being spent on people who sit at home doing nothing. That is not true. One of the big triumphs of the Labour Government was to create a situation in which single parents, for example, can work. Single parents have been enabled to work, but only a very low proportion of them used to work, even compared with other countries, because the benefits system made it very difficult for them to do so. Tax credits, which come under the big heading of welfare spending, are designed specifically to let people work. That is what they are about. They are not about people sitting at home doing nothing. That is another myth.

I was interested to hear another hon. Member praise an academy project. We have set up similar projects in Edinburgh. I hear people talking about having a single, unitary, simplified form of training; the point is that it must be relevant to particular areas. Our training was in health care, because we had brand-new hospitals, but one size will not fit all.

Let us give up on the myths and talk about the reality. I hope that our prediction that things will not go well in the next few years does not come true, but my constituents are very afraid.

Capital Gains Tax (Rates)

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Perhaps not in the hon. Gentleman’s view, but he has never been reasonable in my view, so good luck to him.

The Budget tackled the ballooning cost of housing benefit. In real terms, the cost of working-age housing benefit has increased from £10.6 billion to £15.4 billion in 2010-11. If the system was left unreformed, it is projected that the housing benefit bill would reach £21 billion in 2014-15. It is out of control and what is more, housing benefit is often unfair for working families. Today, a tenant in a five-bedroom house in an expensive area such as Westminster could feasibly get more than £100,000 a year. Although that example applies to a small number of people, some 750,000 get more than £10,000 a year. Those cases are still in the minority, but they happen far too often. It is unacceptable and unaffordable that people on benefits are living in homes that our hard-working families cannot afford, so we have capped local housing allowance levels at the rate for four-bedroom properties.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the biggest reason behind the increase in housing benefit is the lack of affordable rented housing in this country? Most of my constituents would rather live in an affordable rented house than a private rented home.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Oh dear me; there is no stopping Labour Members sometimes. I must say to the hon. Lady: whose fault is that? The Labour Government slashed the building programme, so Labour Members have only themselves to blame. Everyone warned them about the problem for years. As far as we possibly can, we need to ensure that the houses that people occupy are of the size that they need. We should not have elderly people trapped in houses that are far too large for them and that they cannot look after. Only the most expensive areas will be affected by the cap.