Health and Social Care Levy

Debate between Clive Betts and Kevin Hollinrake

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

I have made my position clear on the extent to which local government has been unfairly cut compared with other parts of the public sector.

Across the piece, local councils of all political persuasions have done a brilliant job of protecting their communities over the past few years. They have done it by giving priority to social care, but that has still meant real-terms cuts due to the demographics, with more older people, with people with learning disabilities living longer and with increased costs and demand for children’s social care—demand for the latter two has gone up faster than the demand for elderly care over the past few years.

In protecting social care, there have still been real-terms cuts. There are 1 million more elderly people not getting care who would have received it in the past. Other services, such as parks, libraries, buses and highway safety, have all been cut by up to 50% in local authorities across the country. We are repeatedly asking our constituents to pay increased council tax, often for care services they are not receiving, when the services they do receive are being cut to shreds. That is the reality.

As representatives of both parties in the local government sector said to the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, we cannot sort out the funding problems in local government without sorting out the funding problems in social care. That is the reality.

We are in the middle of a Select Committee inquiry, and we will be taking evidence from Ministers. I hope they will start to explain to us how the care plan will solve that problem. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee have received estimates that the funding gap for social care alone is between £2.5 billion and £4 billion a year, which does nothing to restore services to the level they should be at or to address the real problems of low pay, which will eventually destroy the service because it will not be able to recruit people as alternative jobs, such as at Amazon, pay so much more. That is simply the reality.

How much money will come from the levy? Paragraph 30 is the only bit that talks about money: £5.5 billion over three years. The gap is between £2.5 billion and £4 billion a year, yet we know the £5.5 billion has to fund: the cap and floor system, which will be at least half of it, maybe more; and the £500 million for workforce training, which is welcome. The money goes nowhere near funding the current gap, let alone bringing about any improvements or bringing people into the social care system who are currently excluded. It just does not do it.

The Government have said they will

“ensure local authorities have access to sustainable funding for core budgets at the spending review”.

All will be revealed in the spending review, but the key bit is that the Government say they expect

“demographic and unit cost pressures”

will be met

“through council tax, social care precept”.

We have had 5% council tax increases year on year, and a lot of it has been to fund social care, so we are going to get above-inflation council tax increases again, are we? If we say national insurance payments are regressive, council tax is now regressive, too. That is the reality.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Betts]

Yes, I will give way, because I think the hon. Gentleman will ask me about the Select Committee’s 2018 report. Am I correct?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As always, he is making some very good points. I thoroughly enjoyed my time with him on the Select Committee.

We did two reports on social care, and we made a recommendation in 2018 to fund social care through the national insurance system. Does the hon. Gentleman still support that recommendation?

[Mr Betts]

Yes. However, may I just say to the hon. Gentleman that it was a slightly different recommendation from what the Government are proposing now? I have our report here, just by chance—I thought I might be asked the question. We talked about the rate at which national insurance would be paid—this was to cover the points that the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) made about low-paid areas. We talked about paying right the way up the income scale. We talked about extending it to pensions and unearned income, and about it not being paid for by the under-40s, who have been really badly hit by this pandemic, and we ought to be doing our best to protect them. In paragraph 95, we also made the important point that people should not have to sell their homes to pay for social care and proposed instead

“that a specified additional amount of Inheritance Tax should be levied”.

We all agreed to that. That system is a lot fairer; people would pay according to the value of their home and it would not be that people in constituencies such as the right hon. Gentleman’s, where house prices are relatively low, end up paying a bigger percentage of the value of their home to fund care than people in areas with higher house prices. I stand by that recommendation. It is a different proposal from the one the Government are now putting forward.

I want to come back to the point for the Minister. There is a crisis in social care, and we have all got that; we all have constituents come to us begging for social care. They are really concerned about having to sell their home, but sometimes it is about not being able to get into a care home or get the care at home they need. Most social care should be delivered in the home where people live. The reality is that there simply is not a proposal in this so-called “plan” to give local authorities that money that is needed to both fund the existing gap and to extend social care to the many people who have been denied it because of the cuts in the past few years. Furthermore, the alternatives will be: bigger rises in council tax—the Government have almost signalled that in this report; or further devastating cuts to other services received by most of our constituents, who do not get social care but have to pay for it. This is a recipe for disaster. Eventually, when it works through, everyone will see that there is no plan for social care here, because there is no funding for social care that will deliver the sort of social care system we all want to see.

Westferry Printworks Development

Debate between Clive Betts and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is obviously going to respond to the letter I sent to him from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. We may well come back to some of the issues, depending on what he says to the Committee in that regard. I said previously in the House that these matters are dealt with best when we have the facts in front of us, rather than supposition and conjecture, because that leads us into very difficult territory. I have also said that I am not accusing the Secretary of State or anybody of wrongdoing. I want to see the facts and look at the situation, along with the Committee, and then come back to any further questions we may have.

In the absence of the documentation—even if it has been sent to the Committee by now, I have not had a chance to read it before the debate—I say to the Secretary of State that there will probably be some questions about the precise nature of conversations at the dinner. Whether someone sees a video or not, I would have thought, would have been fairly well stuck in the Secretary of State’s mind. However, when he had been to the dinner, did he immediately inform his officials that he had been present at the dinner, that he had sat next to Mr Desmond, that the matter of the application had been raised with him and that he had refused to discuss it? If so, when was that confirmed with officials? Did he put that in writing to officials, and, if so, did they then advise him whether it was appropriate for him to carry on considering the application and making a judgment about it? If so, was that put in writing to him? If officials had reservations, was that put in writing to him as well?

Did officials and the Secretary of State at any point, therefore, consider whether in the light of the conversations at the dinner and a pretty well documented and considered attempt by the applicant to influence the Secretary of State at the dinner, it might have been appropriate for him to withdraw from the decision made at that time? When the case was going to court and the Secretary of State decided to withdraw his decision, because of the appearance of bias with regard to the financial liability on the developer that would be removed, was any part of his decision to withdraw also based on the possibility of an appearance of bias in relation to the events at the dinner that he or officials concluded might be an issue that came up in court at the time?

In planning, perception can be just as important as the facts. Even if the Secretary of State refused to discuss the matter at the dinner—I completely accept his word on that—should not the fact that the developer with an interest had sat next to him at the dinner and raised the matter with him have alerted him to the possibility of an appearance of bias and of accusations following if he made the decision in favour of the developer? Again, appearances are really important.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It was a pleasure to serve for four years on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee under the hon. Gentleman’s chairmanship. When he was interviewed recently by the BBC—it might have been Sky—did he not say that there was no information that the Secretary of State was guilty of any wrongdoing? Will he confirm that that was his position then, and is his position now?

[Mr Betts]

We talked about that yesterday. Yes, of course I said there was no evidence. I have not seen any evidence, and I repeated just now that I am not accusing anyone of wrongdoing, What I am saying is that perception and appearances in these matters are almost as important as the facts themselves.

Although the Secretary of State recognises that an informed and fair-minded person might come to the view that there was bias on his part in terms of the liability to the developer that was removed by his decision, did he at any point consider that an informed and fair-minded person might conclude that the events of the dinner could also lead to bias on his part? That seems crucial. If that is the case, when he reflects on the matter now, does he think that he might have done better had he decided not to take part in the decision-making process, once the developer had, quite wrongly—I repeat, the developer had, quite wrongly— tried to influence him at the dinner?

Education and Local Government

Debate between Clive Betts and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

Yes, I do. People cannot sell their properties and they cannot get mortgages on them, and this whole area presents a real challenge. It is no use Ministers saying, “We don’t think this is quite as dangerous”, because the fact is that that cladding on a building means that people will not buy, and people cannot get a mortgage and are stuck. The Minister needs to act at some point on that. The freeholders have not got the money to pay for this and neither have the leaseholders, and people are stuck in unsaleable properties, which is a real difficulty for them.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman does stand again to be Chair, because it has been a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee under his tutelage over the past four and a half years. He mentions not only the problems of local authority financing and their finances, but the social care premium. Does he see those two things as being correlated? The biggest issue for local authorities is the funding of social care, and if a different solution is provided for that, the financial pressure on many local authorities is relieved.

[Mr Betts]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that, although perhaps I should call him my hon. Friend for this purpose, given how we have worked together on the Select Committee. The problem with the great and rising demand for social care is that it means that there is proportionately less money to be spent on important things such as the environment, road repairs and refuse collection, the things that everybody receives from their local council. Many people then start to say, “Why am I paying my council tax? I am getting less and less for paying more and more.” That issue can be addressed by a social care premium as well.

Finally, on the cladding issue, it came to my attention over Christmas—I did a bit for the “You & Yours” programme—that the National House Building Council is refusing to pay out on a warranty for properties where the cladding put on was not the right type but it had been improperly passed by the building inspector. The NHBC said that it was not its building inspector and the warranty applied only in cases where its building inspector had done the work. That is a major loophole in people’s circumstances. When people have bought a house and got a warranty, they think that that warranty is going to cover them for defective materials. However, if that defective material was passed off by a building inspector that was not the NHBC’s inspector, as in this case, they are not covered. I hope the Secretary of State will look at that issue too. I recognise the time limit, Mr Deputy Speaker, but these are major issues that arise from the Queen’s Speech. I hope that there will be some cross-party working, perhaps through the Select Committee, that will help us move forward.