Finance (No. 2) Bill
Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Baroness Keeley(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sheila Gilmore
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Of course the position she sets out is exactly what we saw in the early part of this Parliament when VAT was increased and a number of other measures were put in place. At that point, inflation hit about 5.5%, which then allowed the Government to say, “Aren’t we wonderful? We have just put pensions up by the biggest ever amount.” But that increase would have come even under the old system—even under a system that was simply tracking pensions to inflation—because of the inflation rate. Pensioners were not getting some amazing extra increase that year; there was a simple tracking of what had happened, largely because of the VAT issue.
Not only have many of those low-paid people not got any further gain to get if the tax threshold keeps increasing, but they have actually lost out at the same time, because one thing that has helped to pay for all this has been the reductions in things such as tax credits. Many low-paid people lost more in tax credits than they gained in the rise in the tax threshold. The Government keep endlessly repeating that low-paid people are the ones who have benefited, but that has not been the case in practice for many of these people, particularly those with families and children—they have particularly suffered. For them, the Budget is a bit of non-event and it will continue to be so.
That is why the £12 billion of welfare cuts that have been pencilled in for some two years now in various statements by the Treasury, and by the Chancellor in particular, are very important. Part of that approach might be to cut away further the support given to people in work, perhaps through the tax credits system, at some future point. Tax credit is to be replaced by universal credit, but the issue remains much the same in terms of how it tapers off and where the losses might come.
We already know that in many respects universal credit will be less beneficial for a lot of people in work, as they increase the hours of work they do. So how much of this £12 billion will come from that source? Again, people may be given a little bit with one hand, through the increase in the tax threshold, but find that they lose as a result of what the other hand is taking. We just do not know because we have been given no detail; it has been deliberately withheld, although one suspects that someone, somewhere has a plan. It would be strange if they did not have a plan. If, under welfare cuts, we are taking away things such as support for people who are in work, it is extremely important.
The other area is housing benefit, because, again, that is increasingly being claimed by people who are in work, not just by people who are out of work. Those people who are in work will be hurt again if there are further attempts to reduce the housing benefit bill, by eroding the amounts that individuals get. Again, we have this lack of clarity and detail. It is understandable why some of us are extremely suspicious about the alacrity with which the Prime Minister wished to distance himself from a VAT increase. For all the talk about a long-term economic plan, we have a lack of any clear policy and detail about what the Conservatives will do if they are re-elected. I hope that they will not be in government, so perhaps they do not need to give any detail, but the people who will be voting in a few weeks’ time deserve to know such things.
We should not be in the position that we were in before the 2010 election when we were promised things, such as that there would be no VAT increase, that were undone very, very quickly. I do not think that people were told about the scale of the reductions that would be made.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. She has returned to the point about the scale of the cuts. Is she as concerned as I am about that? My local council has been cut by 43% since 2010. We now have 1,000 people losing their social care packages this year. Is it not very frightening that what we face in the next couple of years are cuts that are deeper than anything we have seen before? I find that prospect frightening for social care and local services, which are already crippled, and for policing—for keeping our local community safe. Does she feel that way, too? We have already seen what has happened—
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Debate between Sheila Gilmore and Baroness Keeley(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
People in my constituency must have hoped that the Budget could provide some light at the end of the tunnel created by austerity and cuts, but they will have been disappointed. Thousands of them are being hit this year by the coalition Government’s fiscal and welfare reform measures, to be implemented after 1 April. After so many Government U-turns there could have been action in the Budget to soften the blow of these changes. The Chancellor could have done that, instead of the tax cut for millionaires he is going ahead with.
Manchester and Salford are cities hardest hit by the bedroom tax. More than 2,600 families in my constituency will be hit by that policy, and many will have to pay between £500 and £900 extra to continue to rent their homes. If they cannot pay, they are expected to move, but the catch is that there are very few smaller properties available for those trying to move. City West housing trust told me that some 460 families have asked to downsize. However, it expects to have re-housed only 43 families by April, and 260 more in 2013-14. The trust believes that some 80 households might find a mutual exchange. So, the total number of households that can be helped to move is less than 400, leaving more than 2,000 to find between £500 and £900 extra in rent. It is estimated that the bedroom tax will cost our local economy £1.9 million in my constituency and almost twice that in Salford, because tenants will have so much less to spend.
This year, pensioners in my constituency lost more than £80 because the personal allowance was frozen, and people who turn 65 this year will lose much more—£320—owing to the change in age-related allowances. Parents in my constituency have lost out on child benefit. Constituents who lost this previously universal benefit felt deep resentment at that. A survey carried out by the Child Poverty Action Group found that child benefit is overwhelmingly spent on clothes, books, education and food—so that is a further loss to our local economy. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) spoke about serious commentators. The Child Poverty Action Group did not welcome yesterday’s Budget, for obvious reasons.
Unemployment rose yesterday in my constituency— 3,477 people are now unemployed, an increase on the previous month’s figure. As a result of the Government’s failure on growth and jobs, borrowing is set to be billions higher. To pay for this failure, the Chancellor is taking billions from working-age benefits and tax credits by uprating them, as we know, by only 1% over the next three years, a real-terms cut.
Sheila Gilmore
One thing that has not been discussed much is that, on top of that 1% cut, the Government appear to want to cap the type of expenditure that has always been demand-led. That will presumably require further cuts to benefits; otherwise, it will not happen.
Barbara Keeley
It is frightening both in extent and in scale. In Worsley and Eccles South, 7,500 people are in work and receiving tax credits. They are the ones who will lose out over the next three years. Most of the savings the Government are making are not from out-of-work benefits, as we have discussed in previous debates, but from tax credits, maternity allowance, maternity pay, sick pay and housing benefit, all of which are claimed by working people—the strivers whom David Cameron promised to stand up for and who are now being hit by Government cuts.
As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said earlier, the 1% benefits uprating, along with all the other changes that keep being trumpeted, such as the tax allowances, will mean that a one-earner family on £20,000 with two children will lose £380 a year. A family on that level of income is also likely to be hit further by the bedroom tax and the cut to council tax benefit. Indeed, 20,000 households in Salford will be affected by the 10% cut to council tax benefits that the Government are leaving it to the city council to implement.
On new announcements, it is disappointing for families with children that the Government are pledging to help with child care costs in a scheme due to start in autumn 2015. Families on middle and low incomes have already lost up to £1,500 through earlier Government cuts to child care support. They need help now, not in two and a half years’ time.
Sheila Gilmore
As a result of the stimulus provided by the previous Government, all those measurements were turning in the right direction at that time—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister who is laughing ought to look, as I did last weekend, at the OBR report on the June 2010 pre-Budget report. He might not be laughing quite so hard then. The Government fail to analyse the problem correctly, so it is not surprising that they do not arrive at the right decision.
On jobs, it is not surprising that the Chancellor did not want to dwell on unemployment and this week’s increase. All we hear about is the increased number in employment. For once, I will not dwell on the statistics—others have done so, and I mentioned them in an intervention, but I want to highlight what the jobs situation means in the real world.
Last Saturday, I was out knocking on doors in my constituency. Within half an hour, I had met two people who were good examples of what the jobs situation means for them. One man had a 15-hour a week job in a local supermarket. No doubt these flexible short-term jobs are quite useful for the employer in meeting peak demand, and, of course, a person working 15 hours for the minimum wage will be below the national insurance threshold, which is another advantage for the employer. He had asked for more hours because he will be hit by the bedroom tax, but he was told that extra hours were not available.
Even if the hours were available, whom would they be taken from? My constituent might be given more hours, but unless there is a need for extra hours to be done in that job, another employee will get fewer hours, or another person would not get a job. Counting low-hour part-time jobs—we should remember that some so-called full-time jobs involve low hours—and saying, “Aren’t they wonderful?” is to forget that we are talking about real people. What effect does that have on them? The man is working and wants to work. More work in future would be good for his well-being, but he remains in poverty, like so many others.
Barbara Keeley
My hon. Friend makes some excellent points. Does she agree that, although people want those jobs, taking them often means they are denied the chance of further training and other opportunities? They would rather stick in the jobs they have than take the risk of going for those opportunities.
Sheila Gilmore
I know from work by single parent organisations that that is a problem for single parents who want to re-skill so that they can get jobs that will help them to bring up their children.
In the situation I have described, the individual stays poor, and the economy stagnates. That is the reality of the so-called jobs miracle. It is time the Government got real about what is happening.
On the housing measures, if the Government want to help the housing crisis and stimulate the economy, the best way would be through direct investment, which could be done very quickly. There are lots of sites with planning permission that could be used to build affordable homes. To say that 15,000 additional so-called affordable homes will be built as a result of the Budget is so far away from helping the problem that I do not know where to begin. As I said in an intervention, those are not really affordable homes—homes at 80% of market value are not affordable to most people. If they become affordable for people on low incomes, the housing benefit bill will be ratcheted up, when the Government have told us for so long that they are trying to reduce it. One part of the Government is ensuring that many of my constituents suffer a substantial cut in their income from the bedroom tax to cut the housing benefit bill, but another part is busily putting the housing benefit bill up. The policy does not make sense. Last year, we were told that 100,000 people will benefit from the Help to Buy scheme. The reality is that only 1,5000 have benefited. It is not enough to talk about all those plans and say how wonderful they will be when none of them results in anything.
Frankly, an athlete who became slower after their trainer told them they had only to diet to get faster would sack the trainer. That is what we need to do.