Finance (No. 2) Bill
Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Sheila Gilmore(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
They certainly do. This measure is a start. We do not have tons of money, and the fact that resources are scarce has been well pointed out. Nevertheless, we are doing things that reduce the income inequality for families across the country, using the long-term economic plan. It has meant that gilt rates have been able to stay relatively low, which means that mortgage rates have stayed low and that is probably doing more for people than anything else, along with our fuel duty freezes and indeed cuts in previous Budgets. Those kinds of things are helping families, be they married or not.
I appreciate that time is short and others are waiting to speak, Mr Caton. I just wish firmly to say that although I am a singleton—I thought I had met Mr Right 20 years ago, but it did not work out—I hope that every married couple benefiting from this will recognise that at least they can go and have a nice wedding anniversary with a little bit more cash from the Government.
Sheila Gilmore
We hear so much in this House about how little money there is and how hard it is, yet certain members of the Government support this measure. It appears that not all do—the Lib Dem part of the coalition may or may not support it; it said it did not previously. We are talking about only a small amount of money, but let us see what it is equivalent to. Many people in this country have been outraged by the Government’s bedroom tax. Even if that makes the savings the Government claim it will, which I doubt, it will save less than the amount this measure will pay out. That is the problem: the Government say that the issue that has to be addressed all the time is saving money, but clearly when it comes to some things saving money is not quite so important. There are priorities, and the Government have chosen to make this policy one of them.
I believe we should be giving particular help to families with children, and not just to couples because they happen to be married. Apart from in respect of the very poorest, I have not noticed any great appetite to do away with the couple penalty that probably does apply in terms of people in the benefits system. But if two people choose to marry, we have an independent taxation system here and they can choose to work or not work, so I do not see where any great penalty is being applied to marriage. For those who have children the situation may be different.
If the Government wanted specifically to help parents who are staying at home with children, perhaps that is what they should have done. This measure does not do that; it helps couples where one person is not working, but it has no relationship with the needs of any children they may be raising. If our main aim is to help people with children and make sure that children are brought up in stable relationships, I cannot see what this measure has to do with that. The reason many relationships break down, whether or not they are marriages, has to do with financial insecurity and the difficulties that causes. Those struggling through a cost of living crisis and those who have lost out because of many of this Government’s policies particularly include the low paid. We can all pick and mix our experts—some hon. Members have cited views of the Institute for Fiscal Studies—but if we really want to help low-paid people, we must examine things such as the proposed tapering for universal credit. We need to examine the structure in place for working people who will be in receipt of universal credit—the replacement for tax credits. Under the current structure there is a serious lack of support for second earners in the family who want to start building up their earnings. We could be looking at such things, including child care help for low-paid families.
Very briefly, let me tackle something that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). He did not take my intervention, so I will deal with it now, and, as he raised the matter, it must be relevant to this debate. One statement that Government Members are always keen to make is that every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher than when they arrived, but it is not true. In 1946 unemployment was 2%, and in 1951 it was 1.3%. In 1951, at the beginning of the Tory Government, unemployment was 1.3%, and in 1964 it was 1.7%, so it went up under a Tory Government. Between 1979 and 1997, which was again a Conservative Government, unemployment went up from 5.2% at the beginning to 7.4% at the end, but for 13 of those 18 years, unemployment was above 10%. Therefore, the statement is not true, and it also completely distorts the appalling unemployment record of the Government between 1979 and 1997. I will now sit down and allow others to speak.
Housing Benefit
Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Sheila Gilmore(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
I do not know the details of the hon. Gentleman’s case, but I am sure that he is taking it up with his local council. Rather than responding to individual cases, however, I would prefer to stick to the principle of why we believe this to be fair and right. I will come to my reasons in a moment.
On social housing, as the Minister said, it would be wrong to expect thousands of homes to sit empty waiting for people to move in. I took up such a case in my own constituency recently. The local council said that it was not getting as much new homes bonus as it had expected, and I wondered whether that was because Suffolk, thought to be prosperous, was missing out. We looked into it and discovered that 120 of the homes sitting empty belonged to the local housing association. I found that extraordinary. So we brought the association in to find out what was being done to maximise the use of those houses—whether they were one, two or three-bedroom homes. Not only will Flagship have to pay more money council tax, if those homes are not used, because we have allowed councils to charge 100% for empty homes after a certain time, but maximising their use would help the council to keep more of its new homes bonus.
Of course, the market can operate in social housing, as has been eloquently explained, via house swapping. I understand that 392 house swaps have been arranged in north Kensington, compared to only nine in Doncaster. It is incumbent on Members to work with their councils to understand what they are doing to facilitate house swapping. From what I learned this morning, my own area is not doing enough, and I will pursue that matter in the future.
Sheila Gilmore
The problem is that the hon. Lady and her Front-Bench team do not seem to know what the policy is for. We hear that it might be about making savings, but if everyone slots into the right-sized house—according to the Government’s criteria, which I do not necessarily accept—there will be no saving. Is it about making savings or making better use of properties? If it is about making better use of properties, there are lots of better ways to do it.
Dr Coffey
The beauty of Government Members is that we think we can achieve both. We believe we can save the taxpayer money and put it towards the affordable homes programme. Our estimate—I appreciate that it is only an estimate and that we will have to wait and see—is that it will save £500 million a year. Meanwhile, we have set aside £4.5 billion for the affordable homes programme to build houses in this Parliament and are already arranging the programme for the next Parliament.
Environmental Protection and Green Growth
Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Sheila Gilmore(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes a good point, and the answer is absolutely not. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) referred to nudge activity, but incentivising people to do the right thing has worked. The punitive measures proposed by the previous Government did not have that effect.
Sheila Gilmore
I would like the hon. Lady to put on record the fact that Edinburgh council has been run by a Liberal Democrat-Scottish National party coalition for the past four and a half years.
Dr Coffey
I said that there were SNP-Liberal Democrat coalitions, as is the case with East Lothian council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) spoke eloquently about rural broadband and ambitions. We all recall the 3G auction, when £22 billion was raised. If half of that had been used, we would have had fibre optics to every house in the country 10 years ago. That is the kind of ambition that we need, and will have, with this Government, who put their money where their mouth is with the £530 million to be spent within the next four years. The Minister may not have recalled that DEFRA also set aside a smaller, £20 million fund to enable communities, especially rural communities, to access broadband now and not necessarily wait until the 2015 target date.
Other Members have talked about the green investment bank and the capital cuts. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Ogmore said, the Labour Government did not commit specifically to a reduction in flood defence spending. However, Labour Members who were Members in the previous Parliament voted in the 2010 Budget for a 50% cut in capital spending. It is correct, as the hon. Gentleman said, that they had not specified where that cut would take place, but nor had they set out a comprehensive spending review. That lack of transparency is one of the reasons the previous Government were thrown out of office fairly decisively.
I have not yet mentioned my favourite topic—coastal erosion. I am delighted to say that since the Minister came to my constituency and pulled people together, local environment agencies, Natural England and communities have been working together to ensure that, with community contributions, we have funded coastal defences in Thorpeness and the scheme in Felixstowe, and we are now enjoying the benefits of that. I am very proud to be on the Government side of the House, and I will vote most strongly against the motion.
Public Confidence in the Media and Police
Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Sheila Gilmore(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
I do not know to whom the hon. Member for Rhondda was referring.
We have to be careful when we say that people have lied to Parliament. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have not got to the bottom of the matter—as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) said, some of the testimony was frustrating—and to do so we need to call further witnesses to our inquiry. However, I now know that the Committee’s intention is that the police and the judicial inquiry see further witnesses rather than us.
I welcome a lot of the suggestions that have been made about equal prominence for apologies and about fining and compensation powers. I asked Mr Murdoch yesterday whether, given his experience in the media spotlight, he would think again about his newspapers’ headlines and some of the targets of their investigative journalism. I appreciate that a headline such as “Up Yours Delors” is quite entertaining and unlikely to cause damage, but The Sun once published the headline “Bonkers Bruno Locked Up”. At that time, Mrs Brooks learned a lesson straight away because the following day she published a front-page editorial from the charity SANE, as well as making appropriate restoration. I see that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) is not in the Chamber, but I should point out that The Sun has made no such restoration of reputation for the Hillsborough 96, which I think would be welcomed by the people of Liverpool.
Newspapers and the Press Complaints Commission itself do not need to wait for the creation of a new regulator because they could change the code of conduct by bringing in several ideas that have been suggested. Although, the PCC’s credibility has sadly, been somewhat destroyed, that does not mean that it should be sulking, as I perceive that some of its comments suggest is the case, although I am sure that that is not its intention. People should look in the mirror before they write those headlines and decide what they are going to put out there. As I said, some of the treatment that editors, both past and present, have recently received will, I hope, make them think again.
Both in the testimony that we heard yesterday and in the Home Office report, there was extremely heavy reliance on lawyers’ advice, for example, on the sum for which people should settle. The Home Office report considered the question of whether former Deputy Assistant Commissioner Clarke relied on lawyers’ advice about undertaking more investigation if News International was not co-operating, and whether he was told that the police could not really exercise certain powers because it would be seen as fishing. From my own experience of corporate life, lawyers always take the lowest-risk approach, and one has to decide whether one wants to take that advice. Indeed, the House decided earlier this year that it was not happy with advice about prisoners’ votes. People should not necessarily hide behind lawyers’ advice. They should listen to it, but they should be prepared to make different decisions.
Dr Coffey
I was about to conclude, so, in deference to other hon. Members who wish to make a speech, I shall not give way.
I applaud the cross-party approach that some hon. Members have taken, but I deplore the tribalism demonstrated by others. I am afraid, however, that I might introduce a little bit myself. It was Mr Yates who led the investigation into cash for honours in which an official serving the then Prime Minister was arrested. I am not aware that people were calling on the then Prime Minister to apologise—I think that there was surprise—and, as has been said by the Prime Minister and by other Members, we should wait until people are charged and, indeed, found guilty before we condemn the decisions of those involved in employing them. On that matter, I commend the motion, and particularly the desire of everyone to make sure that we have a cleaned-up press and a police force whom we are confident can lead such investigations.
The Economy
Debate between Thérèse Coffey and Sheila Gilmore(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I am very proud of my home city, but I hope that she will also credit Lord Heseltine. We started back in the ’80s, we saw the Albert dock and other aspects of the city transformed, and some of that continued under the previous Government, but investor confidence in the city was knocked by that legacy of the ’80s which was referred to earlier.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood also seemed to use marine terms, trying to suggest something about fancy yachts and the similar. The previous Government, in marine terms, were possibly the equivalent of the Titanic. People took their eye off the ball—holed by an unseen disaster, perhaps—with unintended, tragic consequences. That is the state of the economy which has been left behind, however, with tens of thousands of pounds of debt being loaded on to every child born and on to children not yet born.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) referred to the impact of the Budget last year on mothers and families, but every mother and family I know has to cope with a household budget which means that they have to try to balance the books every month. That is absolutely key.
Dr Coffey
No, I have already given way a couple of times to Opposition Members.
It is absolutely key to ensure that when one has already maxed out the credit card, one cannot not keep spending but has to stop and start paying it back.
Staying with the nautical terms, I recognise that it is not going to be plain sailing ahead, but I can assure members of the British public that Conservative Members will be firmly on watch. We may need to tack and jibe to reach our final destination, but that destination is fiscal sanity, a growing economy, and a prosperous working Britain. That is why I will support the amendment to the motion.