Oral Answers to Questions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I must explain that Minister Clarke has not been able to get connected and I must thank Minister Chris Pincher for stepping in—I now call him to answer the substantive question tabled by Yvonne Fovargue.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

What recent assessment he has made of the reduction in local authority revenue as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

What recent estimate he has made of the reduction in local authority revenue as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I apologise for the absence of the Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke)—I am a small but no less perfectly formed substitute, I hope.

We are working closely with the sector to develop a good understanding of the pressures that local authorities are currently facing. We have announced £3.2 billion of additional funding and measures to support immediate cash-flow concerns. This is a very significant package of support, which responds to the range of pressures that councils have told us they are facing.

[Yvonne Fovargue [V]]

Wigan Council estimates that it will lose £40 million in income this year, while spending on frontline services has absolutely rocketed because of the coronavirus crisis. In addition, the loss of the dividend from Manchester airport will exacerbate that pressure—[Inaudible.]

[Christopher Pincher]

I think I got the gist of the hon. Lady’s question. Wigan Council has received £10.5 million of the original £1.6 billion that has been allocated to local authorities, and that funding is unringfenced so they can use it as they see fit. As the House will know, local authorities will be fully compensated for the business rates loss that they have incurred, and we will work with councils over the coming weeks to understand what their particular needs are.

Legal aid

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That goes to the heart of the argument. These cuts will affect the most vulnerable in our society; yet another example of Government cuts hitting the poorest hardest.

I want to refer to taking debt out of the legal aid budget. The Government have recognised in the Green Paper that many of the people who are mired in debt are ill or disabled, and that debt often afflicts the most vulnerable in society. Yet they are still proceeding to introduce proposals and measures that will deny those people access to legal advice and representation.

I will briefly mention something I raised in the House last week. I asked the Leader of the House what was going to happen to the financial inclusion fund, which is a great source of help for people with debt problems. In Wolverhampton, hundreds of people are helped every year by this fund. I was given wise counsel by the Leader of the House that I should raise the issue this morning. He was sure that the Minister would give me an answer. I know that the matter is being administered by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury, but I urge the Minister to give clarity on whether the fund is to go ahead beyond March. Again, the uncertainty that my hon. Friends have raised applies and it is not helpful.

I do not wish to be too long because I know that other colleagues want to get in. I want to add that, apart from failing the test of social justice, these proposals also fail on a cost-benefit analysis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North eloquently explained that the cuts will be a false economy in many areas. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux published a business case for legal aid this year. It said that for every pound of legal aid spent on housing advice, the state saves £2.34, and for every pound spent on debt advice, the state saves £2.98. It also stated that on welfare benefit advice, the state saves £8.80, and that on employment advice, it could save £7.13.

Have the Government looked properly at the savings that early intervention makes possible? Have they done a proper cost-benefit analysis of the costs of their proposals for public services down the line? I fear that this is short-sighted, and that the Government are seeking short-term savings that will have significant costs later. Other Members have made the same point.

The other thing that worries me is that the Government say in the Green Paper that other alternatives will be available. The document then outlines what those alternatives might be. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North has already mentioned this, but it is telling: NACAB says that the overwhelming majority of its client group will not be able to access the alternatives identified in the Green Paper.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although one alternative, the expansion of telephone advice, is welcome—I agree that not enough telephone information available—it is not suitable for the most vulnerable, particularly those in debt, as many who use mobile phones cut themselves off in order to save money?

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not agree more. There is no substitute for face-to-face counselling and advice. As my hon. Friend rightly states, the cuts mean that the only recourse for vulnerable people will be some sort of telephone system, but they may not be comfortable with it and might not be able to afford it.

The proposals in the Green Paper will make the poor poorer and the most vulnerable more vulnerable. The cuts should fall elsewhere. There are other ways to reform the legal aid budget, and the Government should think again.