Childcare Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I have some notices and explanations before we begin. Members may remove their jackets; they do not have to ask me. Everyone should ensure that all telephones and other electronic devices are now switched to silent. Amendments should be tabled three working days before the sitting in which they are to be considered—for example, on Thursday for Tuesday’s sitting, and on Monday for Thursday’s sitting. However, we do not have that many sittings, so Members had better be quick. The Chair will generally not select late amendments, so they have to be on time. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows any amendments that have not been selected and how selected amendments on the same or a similar issue have been grouped together for debate.
A Member with the lead amendment in a group is called first. I then propose the question and call other Members to speak. Members may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments I will call the Minister, if he has not already spoken. I will conclude the debate by calling the Member with the lead amendment to wind up. Before that Member sits down, they must indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or press it to a vote. Members with grouped amendments must also signal if they want a vote. The Chair assumes that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments.
Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. New clauses, whether they have already been debated or not, are decided after we deal with existing clauses. I will use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses after a debate on relevant amendments. This morning the Committee will adjourn at 11.25 am; that is automatic. This afternoon it is in the hands of the Whips, but between four o’clock and five o’clock is conventional. I hope that those explanations were helpful. Before beginning line-by-line consideration of the Bill, we need to dispose of the programme motion and the motion to report written evidence.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 8 December) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 December;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 10 December;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 15 December;
(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 15 December.—(Mr Gyimah.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Mr Gyimah.)
Clause 1
Funding review
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“(2A) The review to be established under subsection (1)(a) shall examine and make recommendations about a mechanism and criteria for agreeing—
(a) an enhanced rate of funding per hour;
(b) more than 30 hours of free childcare per week;
(c) free childcare for more than 38 weeks in a year; or
(d) a combination of two or more of the enhancements set out in paragraphs (a) to (c);
in circumstances where the qualifying child has a disability.”
This amendment provides for a review to be carried out to establish criteria for agreeing an enhanced hourly rate of funding, free childcare beyond 30 hours a week and/or 38 weeks of the year (or a combination of two or more of these), for children with a disability.
Pat Glass
I am delighted to discuss the Bill in Committee on behalf of the Opposition. I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I support the Bill, but as I pointed out to the Minister on Second Reading, good government is about good law, and good opposition is about good scrutiny and challenge. The Bill, which we all support, will be better with good scrutiny and challenge.
The Labour party has a proud record on childcare, supporting women and enabling them to return to work. A Labour Government introduced free childcare for three and four-year-olds, and delivered the first and only childcare strategy across Government. Labour created Sure Start centres serving families and children in every community, expanded school nurseries and more than doubled childcare places. We increased maternity leave from 12 weeks to 12 months, and we increased maternity pay and paternity leave. Labour introduced the right to request flexible working and gave parents help with the cost of childcare through tax credits and vouchers. Childcare was a key part of those plans to support families and to make work pay, and we welcome any investment in it.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
In the spirit of bipartisan, cross-party agreement, will the hon. Lady agree that it was the Conservative party in 1996 that first proposed free entitlement?
Pat Glass
You know what, I do not go back that far, but I am happy to concede the point. I do understand, going back an awfully long way to the 1970s, that local authorities were unable to provide nursery education; it was the former leader of the Conservative party, Mrs Thatcher, who introduced that. I am happy to concede those points.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On that point, there was a Conservative Government for 18 years and it took them 17 years to get to the point of believing that free childcare was necessary in our society. Could they not have come up with it a wee bit earlier? They left it to a Labour Government to deliver it.
Pat Glass
I thank my hon. Friend. It is right that the Government now accept that supply-side funding through free entitlement is a more effective way of helping parents with the cost of childcare. It is a way of controlling prices and quality. However, the Government’s record in recent years, excepting 1996, is less glowing. Financial support for childcare for most families fell in the last Parliament while costs rocketed by a third—they are up more than £1,500 since 2010.
I know that it is not for the Committee to consider the pre-election promise of tax-free childcare, but I never understood that, because from what I can see it has nothing to do with taxes or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Tax-free childcare remains undelivered and severely delayed, and early years childcare places have fallen by more than 40,000 since 2009.
The two-year-olds offer, although a good policy, remains undersubscribed. The chief inspector of schools highlighted in his annual report, which was published last week, that
“113,000 children who would most benefit are not taking up their government-funded places. As a result, too many of the most disadvantaged children are not ready to start formal schooling. Children from low income backgrounds often do best in the structured, graduate-led environment that schools offer. However, the places offered by schools for two-year-olds are disproportionately being taken up by children from more advantaged households.”
Those are not my words but those of Sir Michael Wilshaw, the Government’s chief inspector of schools and head of Ofsted, which were published last week.
Sure Start children’s centres are closing up and down the country. Between April 2011 and June 2015, 250 centres closed. A quick glance at the budgets of those centres that remain open shows that many are becoming signposting centres, with budgets that cover little other than a caretaker and a bottle of Domestos. Many others—I have visited quite a few recently—are no longer childcare centres for under-fives, but for the whole range up to 19. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but that is not what they were intended to be and they are certainly not supporting childcare in the early years.
When I was a member of the Education Select Committee, we looked at childcare in some detail and found that more than a third of childcare centres no longer had any children in them. In evidence to the Select Committee on 18 June 2014—I think I chaired that session—the then Minister for childcare, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), said it was not true that the network of Sure Start centres was diminishing greatly. In the face of overwhelming evidence, the narrative appears to have changed: now it is not about buildings, but about services. However, 4Children’s excellent recent report blows that out of the water. It highlights that more than 2,000 children’s centre sites have had their budgets significantly cut in this financial year, leading to a reduction in front-line services, including days and hours of opening.
The recent story of early years support by the Government is one of reducing support for working families, childcare costs going up and the gender gap remaining stuck for the first time in 15 years. Families were promised tax-free childcare now, but it is going to be delayed for another two years. The promise of 30 hours’ free childcare for three and four year-olds has had the thresholds significantly increased, from eight hours to 16 hours of paid work, or £107 per week. The Minister will have to explain that in a little more detail, because this is scary stuff for parents. If they get this wrong, there are significant penalties involved, and the Government are going to have to be very clear about what the eligibility is. I am not clear about that, so I do not think that it is clear to parents.
Michael Tomlinson
Does the hon. Lady not think that it is only fair that the threshold has been increased from 8 to 16 hours, given that there is already a 15-hour entitlement that is going to remain? Providers in my constituency have contacted me to say that it is only fair and reasonable, given that 15 hours is being provided universally, that 16 hours should be a minimum in order to qualify for the remaining hours.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
There are only 1.4 million three and four year-olds in the country—therefore there cannot be 1.4 million parents. The hon. Lady should check her figures, because they are incredibly wrong.
Pat Glass
Well, most children, although not all, have two parents. I am happy to check that, but I did say that it was an early analysis of the thresholds changing.
The biggest issues are the massive question marks that we hope the Minister will be able to resolve. On Second Reading I said that even during the passage of the Bill the Government’s manifesto promise of 30 hours’ free childcare had been whittled away. Thresholds and delays have increased. The gap remains between what the Chancellor has made available to pay for this and the real cost.
Childcare is vital to our future success. We need our brightest and most able parents to be part of the recovery of our economy and to help it grow. We need good-quality, inclusive, accessible and affordable childcare to help us close the developmental gap pre-school, which is critical to a child’s development and their outcomes throughout their life. High-quality, flexible childcare is critical not only for the economy, but for the child’s wellbeing and development. I am happy to say that, across the House, we have made great strides in childcare over the past 20 years. I would tend to suggest that the Labour Government did more, but I am happy that this Government are going to make their contribution now.
Important policy challenges remain. Our rates of maternal employment, particularly for mothers with children aged one to four years, are poor compared with those of other OECD countries. In not supporting our brightest and most able mothers back into the workforce, we risk our future economic stability. Over one third of mothers who want to work say that they are unable to do so because of high childcare costs. Two thirds of mothers would like to work more hours but are unable to do so because of unaffordable childcare bills. That is particularly true for second earners, as the Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research have illustrated.
Let me give an example from my family. When my daughter-in-law had three small children, she told me that she was spending almost all her salary—she is a head teacher—on childcare. If that is true for head teachers, it will be doubly true for families on lower incomes. Many mothers still face a pay and status penalty in the labour market for having children, yet increasingly work is becoming the only option for both parents, as pressures on family budgets have increased. For families up and down the country the chances of keeping their heads above water, let alone owning their own home and providing the security that their family needs, depend on both parents working. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, single-earner households are now more likely to be in poverty. To boost our economy and give families the chance of a decent job, home and income, childcare investment is essential.
High-quality childcare is also vital in tackling disadvantage. We know that many of the most disadvantaged five-year-olds are starting school 18 months behind their peers. That gap begins to open up at 24 months and by five years old our brightest children from our poorest homes are already falling well behind less able children from more advantaged homes. This is wrong; it is a waste, ultimately, of talent, and it holds back our whole economy.
Good childcare could close that gap and give children a firm foundation for school and later life. However, it is a fact that sometimes the two aims of economic output and early education require different policy solutions. They are too often conflated, and sometimes seeking to improve one element can come at the expense of the other. Our concern in scrutinising and challenging the Bill is that getting more women and more mothers back into work does not come at the expense of children’s development. That is why supply-side support, such as extra hours, is a good way to deliver both. Tax-free childcare, although some way—
The Chair
Order. Will the hon. Lady please keep to the substance of her amendment? We are going off track.
Pat Glass
I am coming back on to it very quickly.
Tax-free childcare, although some way from being delivered, is designed to put cash in parents’ pockets, but it does not contain the levers to deliver quality or to control prices. The two-year offer aims to reduce inequalities rather than be an economic driver. However, the chief inspector of schools pointed out last week in his annual report to the Government that in this area the Government’s policy on disadvantaged two-year-olds is failing at least 113,000 of our most disadvantaged two-year-olds and therefore arguably has the potential to widen rather than narrow the attainment gap.
The extension of the 15-hour offer to 30 hours should be about delivering both objectives, but that requires both quality and funding, and the huge funding gap will, if not addressed, damage both quality and capacity in childcare. This, I think, is what their Lordships were most concerned about when they looked at this amendment, which the Government now seek to remove. As I have said, we support the Bill, we want it to work and we want it to deliver quickly, but there remain a number of challenges with the Government’s plan and it is only right that we scrutinise them.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
The hon. Lady wants this to be implemented quickly, but when she gets on to the substance of the amendment she will tell us it proposes a review that will delay implementation, will she not?
Pat Glass
I am sorry, I just do not accept that. Nobody is going to see any of this—apart from the early implementers, and there will be very small numbers of those—until 2017. The Government have plenty of time to get this right, and if they do not, we risk ending up with either less provision or poor provision. It is really important that we take our time up to 2017 to make sure that we get this right for families.
At the heart of our concerns, and those of their Lordships, is a serious funding gap. The Chancellor’s recent announcements only go some way to answering those. The other place voted to amend the Bill on three separate occasions, mainly on procedural grounds because the Bill lacked substance and clarity about funding. It has been dogged by lack of detailed information and costings. The Minister really needs to respond to those concerns and answer those questions over the next couple of days.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Lady for coming to the substance of the debate in front of us. Their Lordships inserted the amendment before the spending review when the Chancellor made clear the eligibility criteria and the funding to go alongside it. If the hon. Lady still disagrees with the £1 billion of extra funding that has been made available for the entitlement, will she make clear, therefore, how much she thinks should go into the sector to fund this entitlement and what her calculations are based on?
Pat Glass
Now I am even more confused because I want to know where the £1 billion is that the Minister is talking about. My understanding is that the figure is £650 million, but I can come on to that in some detail because I think the Government are all over the place on costs. The Minister is going to show us how he will do the basic maths on this. I have an MSc in maths and, quite frankly, I am confused about this. I always think I am reasonably good at this sort of stuff, but I am absolutely confused.
Alex Cunningham
The IPPR says that the Government’s policy costing of £365 million in the first year is inexplicably low compared with other estimates, as well as with current funding. They warn that any
“shortfall could drive down childcare quality and leave the needs of working families unmet, with poorer outcomes for children and less choice for parents as the market shrinks”.
Surely an organisation such as that is clear about its figures.
Mr Gyimah
I will be very happy to clarify all those numbers when I come to my response. On the subject of the IPPR report, which I know has been quoted a number of times by Opposition Members, I have a lot of respect for the IPPR. In fact, some of our best officials from the Department for Education work at the IPPR. I should draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that this report was published in October 2015, which is about a month before the spending review in which we set out who is eligible. Without knowing who is eligible, it is not possible to know what the programme is going to cost. This report, fortunately, is very much of its time.
Pat Glass
The Minister needs to explain to us the costs and the eligibility. All those issues need to be clarified in his response. He will have to spend some time explaining to us why, before May 2015, he himself told us that 25 hours of free childcare would cost £1.2 billion, and yet in November 2015 we were told that 30 hours of free childcare would cost £640 million. The IPPR has identified a huge funding gap, and the Minister will have to explain how reducing the thresholds will fill that gap of almost £800 million. I very much welcome the extra money that the Chancellor announced in the comprehensive spending review, but the Minister will have to clarify where and how the funding will be allocated.
The danger is that the Government’s failure to adequately fund the free offer could have far-reaching implications for the childcare market. Analysis by the House of Commons Library shows that there are more than 44,000 fewer childcare places today than there were in 2009. In addition, six in 10 local authorities tell us that they do not have an adequate supply of childcare for local parents now. There is a downwards trend in childcare places, which causes us concern. We do not want to see this well-meaning and potentially excellent policy actually leading to a further reduction in choice for parents.
The Minister suggested that this is about quantity as much as quality for parents. However, parents are concerned about the quality of childcare, and the concern is that this could be damaged by the Government’s failure to adequately support their proposals with funding. There is a wealth of evidence from the Select Committee on Education and from Ofsted that clearly identifies the strong links between outstanding provision and the best qualified—and, therefore, usually the best-paid—staff. Poor childcare is worse than no childcare, and can be detrimental to a child’s development. I am very concerned that, unless the Minister can provide answers on funding, the result will be a diminution of quality provision. Insufficient funds and poor delivery could have the opposite effect to that which the Government want, and will lead to fewer places, poorer quality and higher costs for parents. That is not something that will definitely happen, but it is a serious risk. We want to ensure that risk is taken out of the policy, in so far as we can. The Government have ample time, as I said to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, to address these concerns before their policy is introduced in autumn 2017.
We want to interrogate some of the more glaring gaps in this Committee. Their Lordships agreed the amendment requiring the Government to carry out a review of the sustainability of the Bill—a sunrise clause, I think it is called. I understand that they did so for two reasons: because they were very worried about the very large funding gap, and because there is absolutely no detail at all in the Bill. Everything is going to be in regulations. There is no detail about how the 30 hours of free childcare will be paid for without reducing quality or increasing ratios, or about how the additional 15 hours will be delivered. Will it be early-years learning, will be it part of the early-years framework, or will it be childcare? Will it be delivered differently in different places? Is the first 15 hours to be early-years education and the second 15 hours to be pure childcare—someone of indeterminate qualifications and experience watching over children and ensuring they are kept safe?
The Chair
This debate is on amendment 10 and on whether clause 1 should stand part of the Bill, which gives a wider scope to the Opposition spokesperson, but it would be helpful if Members did not go too wide.
Pat Glass
I said at the beginning of the debate that this is about getting the Bill right. We want it to work and we want to help the Government get it right, and therefore I do not think it is helpful to stick to rigid questions. Ultimately, this is about families and children’s development. We should spend the time to ensure that we collectively, in this place, get the Bill right.
The intention behind the amendment is to consider the worst-case scenario in terms of pure childcare or babysitting—however we want to put it—because I think we have learned from experience in this place that we need to legislate for worst-case scenarios. None of us want to see a situation in which the second 15 hours is pure babysitting, with children strapped in buggies or chairs in front of CBeebies, watched over by staff of indeterminate qualifications. Too many of our disadvantaged children get that at home; we do not want them to get that kind of thing in their childcare settings. We want the second 15 hours of free childcare to be about quality, in a learning and stimulating environment—in other words, good-quality early learning.
There is no detail in the Bill about the flexibilities in the system that the Minister talked about. In the absence of that detail, the sector is concerned that that will mean driving down ratios to the statutory minimum. Providers tell us they only use statutory minimums at break times and lunchtimes, as experience tells them they need higher than statutory minimums if children are to learn as they play and develop good outcomes. There is nothing in the Bill about the lack of capacity in the workforce to deliver the policy or a workforce strategy to address that, and there is very little about the lack of capacity in buildings.
The Chair
Order. Although this is a clause stand part debate, it is clause stand part to the hon. Lady’s amendment, which gives her more scope, but it has to be relevant to the detail of the amendment, not the Bill in its entirety. That is the third time that she has mentioned the Bill. She can have a general discussion at the end, when we have finished considering all the amendments. I am not sure whether she is confused about the difference between clause stand part to her amendment and clause stand part to the Bill, but she needs to keep to the substance of the amendment. She can talk about clause 1 as well, but not the Bill in its entirety.
The Chair
Whatever happened in the Lords, the hon. Lady’s comments have to relate to what is printed in the Bill today. Her comments have to be restricted to clause 1 at this stage. Obviously, when we come to discuss stand part on the Bill, she can go as wide in her remarks as she wants.
Alex Cunningham
Directly on amendment 10, there was an independent parliamentary inquiry into childcare for disabled children, which highlighted the continuing failure of the early years system to provide adequately for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that for that reason, we need the amendment that has come from the Lords? The Lords have made it clear that we need to look into the detail, and understand exactly what we are doing and the related costs so that we can provide for all children, including disabled children.
Pat Glass
That is right, but I also understand that the review mentioned in clause 1 is about reviewing the sustainability and financial support for the Bill. The Lords were concerned that the Bill was not sustainable without looking at the issues of funding, the workforce and the capacity of the industry to deliver the provisions of the Bill. I am trying to tease that out. There are serious issues with capacity in the workforce. Nurseries tell me that they cannot recruit the level 3 students that they need to deliver the 15 hours.
There are serious issues around cross-subsidy. At the moment, nurseries are delivering the free 15 hours by charging beyond the 15 hours for parents who want more than 15, so anybody who gets more than 15 hours is basically subsidising the Government’s 15 hours. If the ability to extend that is taken away because nurseries have to offer 30 hours, the only way in which they can deliver is by charging substantially more for babies, one-year-olds and two-year-olds. There is a real concern that if the provision goes through without the adequate funding, the Government will be putting us in a position whereby women returning to work after maternity leave will not be able to afford childcare because the costs for younger children will rise sharply and dramatically.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I just have a small point, which I am sure will set us up in this debate and in anything else that we may say later. I think we could all agree that childcare is not only about women returning to work. In the 21st century, it is about both parents—men and women—being part of their child’s upbringing and part of the economy of the household.
Pat Glass
It is, but one problem is that the Bill has come through as an education Bill; yet, this small Bill with a few clauses largely appears to be an economic Bill about getting people back into the workforce. I do not see children anywhere in the Bill. Children’s development should be central to it . We should not be giving one at the expense of the other.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Norwich North for raising the issue of fathers. My son and his partner pay £41 a day for childcare, which, if my grandson is there for five days, is £205 a week. How will they be able to benefit from a scheme like this if it is not properly funded?
Pat Glass
That is at the core of our concerns. We are concerned that if the Government remove the review, issues such as the capacity of the workforce and buildings, who will get access, eligibility and so on may mean that the funding will simply not happen. Can the Minister explain in some detail—he has not been able to so far—where the funding is coming from, what it will be spent on and whether the second 15 hours will be the same as the first 15? How will he improve the capacity in the workforce at a time when nurseries are already struggling to recruit qualified staff for the first 15 hours? All those issues would be in that review. If we lose that, there is a danger that we will have no detail and that, ultimately, this very well meant and excellent policy will result in less provision, less choice for parents and less quality in the provision for children. Ultimately, that will have a detrimental effect on children’s development, particularly for our most disadvantaged children, who are getting the least out of the system as it stands.
Pat Glass
Sorry, I meant amendment 10. I think we can all agree that increasing access to 30 hours of free, good-quality, inclusive childcare will benefit all children, but the amendment would ensure that all children and not just some can benefit from the policy. The reality is that many children, and many disabled children, do not benefit from or get access to their 15 hours of current entitlement.
The Minister will know that I chaired a parliamentary inquiry in 2014 into childcare for disabled children. I am not sure whether he has read the report or the recommendations that came out of the inquiry, but he is yet to act on them. On Second Reading I said that I was not shocked by the findings of that inquiry, but deeply saddened and disappointed that so little value is placed on our disabled children and their families and that things have not improved for them as they have for the rest of us.
The thing that I am most proud of with the inquiry I chaired is that it is no longer possible for anyone—Ministers, Department for Education officials, council officials, head teachers, teachers or childcare providers—to say that there is no problem and that everything is okay, because it is clearly not okay. Department for Education officials appeared before that inquiry, and they were still trying to tell us that there was no problem and that there was sufficient legislation to ensure that every disabled child could access the 15 hours of childcare. The inquiry and the follow-up report, “Levelling the playing field”, showed that for disabled parents that is absolutely not true.
Some 40% of families with disabled children are not able to access the current free childcare offer of 15 hours a week. That percentage is 10 times more than that for families with a non-disabled child. Of the families who say that they are not taking up the 15 hours of entitlement, more than a third said that was because they did not think the childcare provider could care for their child’s safely. There is a serious issue that needs to be addressed on the qualifications and experience of childcare workers working with all children and, in particular, with disabled children, and later amendments will seek to address that.
Alex Cunningham
I know the passion that my hon. Friend has for childcare, particularly for disabled children. One in five councils apparently report that they do not have enough childcare for disabled children in their area. Is that not all the more reason why we need a comprehensive review over the next few months to ensure that we can understand the real provision that is available and take measures to fill the considerable gap?
Pat Glass
I agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There needs to be a comprehensive review, not just of the costs of childcare, but of funding, the kind of childcare that will be offered in the additional 15 hours and what is happening to those children who cannot take advantage even of their existing entitlement. That is why we would like the amendment to be made.
Of the 38% of parents who did not take up the childcare offer, 30% did not think that the childcare provider had adequately trained staff to meet the needs of their child. A quarter said that the nursery or childcare provider refused a place or excluded their child purely because of their disability or special educational needs. That is illegal under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, but it has been going on for many years. Nothing will change unless we in this House do something to stop that happening. The Government have given us lots of nice warm words on that, but little action. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said on Second Reading,
“warm words butter no parsnips.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1441.]
My Irish grandmother used to say that warms words do not buy the bairn a bonnet, but the meaning is the same: we need decisive action to improve the situation for the families of disabled children.
For the children who were refused a place or were excluded, nearly half—49%—said that the childcare providers had claimed that they could not meet the child’s additional needs, although no evidence was given of what reasonable adjustments had been considered. Parents were simply being turned away.
One parent I saw told me that she, living in London, had tried 50 childcare providers, some of them maintained, and they had all said that they were full; they said that they did not have a place, although they seemed to have places for children who did not have a disability. Some 47% of those who said that their child needed one-to-one care or other additional support were told that that support was not available to them, or not available at a cost that was affordable.
The parents of disabled children are often charged higher-than-average fees: 80% reported paying £5 an hour or more for childcare; 38% said that they paid £11 to £20 an hour; and 5% reported paying more than £20 an hour. That is in comparison with the national average of £3.50 to £4.50 an hour. The inquiry heard from parents who had been forced to give up work because they could not afford suitable childcare, and from parents who had had to give up their jobs and move to other parts of the country to get help with childcare from family members, because that was the only way in which they could work.
One couple I saw had an autistic child. They had a business in London, but they had to shift their entire business to Cornwall so that they could get access to childcare from relatives. That is not good for them, for our economy or, certainly, for their child. Access to good-quality childcare is important to all families, because it has a positive impact on children’s learning outcomes and enables parents to work. For families bringing up a disabled child, however, access to good-quality childcare is particularly significant, because such families are far more vulnerable to living in poverty than most.
Childcare for children with a disability is frequently a trigger for poverty, because such families incur considerable additional and ongoing expenses relating to their child’s disability and they often encounter significant barriers to entering and, possibly more importantly, sustaining employment. Disabled children are more likely to live in poverty, because it costs three times as much to raise a disabled child as it does to raise a child without a disability; the families of disabled children are 2.5 more likely to have no parent working for more than 16 hours a week in paid employment; only 16% of mothers of disabled children work, compared with 61% of all mothers; 83% of parent carers say that the lack of suitable childcare is their main barrier to work; and only 28% of local authorities say that they have sufficient childcare for disabled children, compared with 54% for all children under two, 69% for three and four-year-olds and 35% for children aged five to 11.
The inquiry I chaired made a number of important recommendations. They were not big asks. We asked the Government to take a number of steps that would begin to improve childcare for disabled children, such as undertaking a cross-departmental review of funding to identify where support needs to be improved to meet the extra costs. We did not ask them to come up with the money; we simply asked for a review to find out where the gaps are. That would have been easy for the Government to do—just to undertake a review—but it did not happen.
We asked the Government to introduce a requirement for local authorities to publish, as part of their special educational needs local offer, information for parents and providers on access to childcare inclusive of support. We simply wanted the Government to ask local authorities to publish their information on what is available and where but, again, that did not happen.
We asked the Government to write to local authorities—simply a letter—to make it clear that all eligible disabled children aged two, three and four were entitled to access their 15 hours of free childcare and to clarify the arrangements for redress. We only wanted the Government to remind local authorities that they were under a duty to ensure that disabled children could access their 15 hours and to tell parents what they could do if they were unable to get that childcare but, again, that did not happen.
As I said, those were not big asks. I do not know whether the Government did not agree with those three simple actions, or whether the suggestions simply got lost among the many other things that the Government have to do. However, the situation remains the same for families with disabled children. High-quality, flexible childcare helps children’s education and social development and enables parents to maintain paid employment, but it remains a pipe dream for many families with disabled children.
Over the past 20 years we in this House have, collectively, improved things for working mothers—I am not saying that we have made things easy, but we have improved them. I have only ever had one child, and I go back a long way, so there was no such thing as maternity leave when I was pregnant. People had to leave their jobs and then reapply for them three months later, or however long it was. If they were lucky, the job was there; if they were not, it was not, and they had to go somewhere else. At the time I had to work, because I was on my own with a little baby.
Over the years, therefore, we in this House have, between us, really made a difference and improved things for working mothers. We now have maternity leave and maternity pay, paternity leave and paternity pay, childcare, improved nursery access and children’s centres. All those things have improved the situation for working parents. However, for parents of disabled children, there has been little—perhaps even no—improvement.
That is something that we, collectively, can do something about. We can make things better for the families of disabled children. We are asking the Government not to spend money, but to look at the additional childcare costs for those families and reflect them in the funding provided. That is the kind of thing that the people who voted for us wanted us to come to the House to do; they wanted us to make a difference to the lives of those people. That is certainly why I came here.
The amendment tries to reflect the true costs of childcare for disabled children. The Government have already acknowledged the additional costs and acknowledged the principle in their tax-free childcare policy, so they need to reflect the costs for disabled children in this policy too.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend will be aware of the report “Levelling the playing field” from Contact a Family, which talks about the early years single funding formula provided to early years settings being extended to include a mandatory supplement, like schools’ notional special educational needs budget, to help early years settings provide support for disabled children. Is that not one of the ways forward that the Government should consider as part of a longer term review?
Pat Glass
That is what we are trying to do as part of the amendment. We want to acknowledge the additional childcare costs that exist for families with a disabled child and to have the issue included in the review.
The amendment asks the Government to look at the additional costs of childcare for disabled children and to consider providing additional funding and additional flexibilities so that such children can access what they are entitled to. Many families cannot access their 15 hours’ entitlement. Many of the families that came along to the inquiry told me that they would get five, or perhaps seven, hours of childcare. For them, extending free childcare to 30 hours, when they know they will still get only five or seven hours, actually makes things worse.
We are asking for no more than that the children of these families can access what they are entitled to, like any other children. As I said, the principle has already been established. Minister, we can make things better for these families, who get very little, and we can do that collectively, so let’s do it.
The Chair
Order. While it is fresh in my mind, may I ask you, Ms Drummond, to please make sure that nobody from your staff ever crosses the floor of the Committee again? If every Back Bencher told their staff to come in and walk across the Committee, it would be chaos. Go outside if you want to collect notes. Thank you.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries—we always have to say that, but it is a pleasure.
I will focus on the funding element of clause 1. I want to start by saying how much I welcome the move to 30 hours of free childcare. For me, as a young mum on a low and unstable income, the Labour Government’s introduction of 15 hours of free childcare was utterly game-changing. My son Harry was one of the very first children to receive that universal service, and I will be forever grateful for it. I am only disappointed that I will not be having any more children and getting the 30 hours. I am cursing the fact that I had my children just too soon—which is what my mum said when I told her I was pregnant.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady quoted the PSLA’s comments on the childcare review. I believe that its comments were informed by a piece of research done by Ceeda. According to that research, the cost of childcare for three and four-year-olds is £4.53 per hour. The average funding rate announced by the Government, from 2017-18, will be £4.88 per hour. Where is the shortfall?
Jess Phillips
I invite the Minister to go back to the evidence that was given to this Committee. That same evidence states that the consultation undertaken by the DFE to come to the figures that he has outlined will be completely outdated by the time of the 2017 roll-out and does not account for all sorts of other costs that nurseries may face.
Jess Phillips
Yes, but give me a chance to answer one intervention before you make another!
Jess Phillips
The shortfall has been identified by the Pre-school Learning Alliance in its research. I can only work on the evidence that has been given to the Committee. There is already a clear shortfall with the 15-hour provision, which is why nurseries tell us time and again that they use other people’s fees to subsidise their rates. The cost of childcare has increased over the past five years.
Alex Cunningham
Would my hon. Friend be surprised to find out that in the Minister’s constituency, childcare already costs £4.85 an hour? That is today, at 2015 at prices. There is a tuppenny shortfall today; what is it going to be like in future?
Jess Phillips
Also, although one welcomes some of the increases in wages that the Government have instigated, they have to be taken into account in the cost of childcare provision. If the cost is already £4.85, by 2017 something will have to give. There is undoubtedly a shortfall. I really hope that the Minister proves me wrong, and that there is no rise in childcare costs for children aged nought to three. However, the evidence suggests that something quite different will happen. All I am asking is for reviews to be put in place to ensure that the Government take any rise in childcare costs into account in their policies, and perhaps that they adjust things to make the situation fairer.
As I have said, where I live, the average wage and the average cost of childcare mean that women pay 103% of their salary towards childcare and men pay 90%. I recognise the comments made by the hon. Member for Norwich North about a society in which men are also child carers. My husband is, and has been almost exclusively since my children were aged three, the full-time carer of my children. However, the simple fact is that is very uncommon, thanks to the gender pay gap. When parents have to decide who goes back to work, they usually do so on the basis of who earns the most money. Unfortunately, that is usually not the girls.
The cost of childcare where I live is a problem in itself, but the Government’s costing of the 30 hours of free childcare has the potential to push that burden even further, to the point where it will be completely unrealistic for the lowest earner in the household to maintain employment. It will be no surprise to anyone here that the lowest earner in most households is usually a woman, and there is a real threat that the rising cost will prohibit women from returning to work for the first three years after they have had their baby.
It should not be a shock to anyone in this room that women’s time out of the labour market is the single biggest contributor to the gender pay gap. For my constituents in the west midlands, where the national trend of the narrowing of the gender pay gap has not quite reached us, last year the pay gap grew from £98.90 per week to £105.60 per week. It is getting worse, not better. The Women and Equalities Committee, of which I am a proud member, is undertaking an inquiry into the gender pay gap. Although I do not want to pre-empt any of the report’s findings, I can guarantee—
Jess Phillips
But it is entirely tied up, Ms Dorries, with the rising cost and reducing availability of childcare.
Jess Phillips
I apologise for going on to my favourite subject. I can almost guarantee that the findings of the review will show that the cost of childcare and women’s time out of the labour market are major driving factors behind the gender pay gap. There is real potential for the Government to exacerbate that with the proposals in the Bill, rather than helping matters, if they are not properly funded.
Alex Cunningham
There is another issue as far as income is concerned, because those who work in the care sector are predominantly women. If the proposals are not properly funded, one of two things will happen. Either wages will be screwed down and people will lose income, or there will be an increased ratio of children to adults in childcare settings. Both those ideas are unacceptable.
Jess Phillips
I totally agree. Without a proper funding structure, if the clause stands part of the Bill, we will need a real focus on quality. Any one of us who has ever left their children with a childcare provider wants to know that their kids are in the best care possible. For those of us who can afford it, sometimes the best care costs a bit extra.
Will the Government commit to a review of the rising cost of childcare for children aged nought to three, and of the issue of women dropping out of the labour market while their children are that age? Will they adjust the funding scheme accordingly if it is found to affect families negatively? For the same reasons, will they also review the rising cost of wrap-around care? The same private sector providers will often provide before and after-school transport as well as the 30 hours of childcare. If there is a shortfall, there will be a knock-on effect for all nursery costs.
To further assess whether the Government have their sums right, they could conduct a simple review of the number of places in the private sector and, more importantly, the maintained sector, when the 30 hours provision comes into being. My children both received 2.5 days a week of free early years education for a year, in a brilliant maintained nursery setting attached to the school that they both now attend. The nursery operated 45 places for school hours on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesday mornings, and a further 45 places for Wednesday afternoons and school hours on Thursdays and Fridays. I do not know why more nurseries do not do it like that, because it seems much better for parents. Having 2.5 hours each day seems as useful as a chocolate teapot to me.
The nursery building that my children attended simply could not manage 90 children for the full 30 hours of a school week. No matter how tiny their little bottoms are on the mats, there is no way that 90 children would be able to go there Monday to Friday. That means that the brilliant, highly sought-after maintained nursery where I live, which is helping many disadvantaged children, has a brilliant special educational needs service and offers a service to disabled children, will go from being able to offer 90 places to, most likely, being able to offer 45 places. That will reduce the availability of childcare in an area where it is really needed.
We cannot just say that we will build extra room on the side. Not only will the £500 million that has been allocated for capital funding not touch the sides for the whole country, but there just is not enough space in city schools such as the one my children attend. Last week, I visited Yardley primary school in my constituency. It is being pushed to go to five-form entry. I imagine that the idea of a five-form entry primary school is probably not that likely in the constituencies of most Conservative Members.
Chloe Smith
I welcome the point the hon. Lady is making about the need for space. I represent an urban constituency, just as she does, so I have heard the point made before. Nevertheless, does she not think that the capital funding could be well targeted to help where it is most needed?
Jess Phillips
I recognise the hon. Lady’s urban seat in Norwich. It is famous for a famous radio DJ who went on about urban regeneration there, so I know quite a lot about the pedestrianisation of Norwich high street. Moving on from Alan Partridge, the problem with capital funding is that it will not create space where it does not exist. My children’s school cannot just expand if it is given money; there is no space for it to move into.
Jess Phillips
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is £500 million that, while well targeted in certain places—
Jess Phillips
Sorry, £50 million—I overstated it. That is even less likely to have any effect. Although the maintained sector is crying out for that funding—almost every single school in my constituency has a waiting list of at least 50 to 100 pupils—it is unlikely that it is going to filter down and make any difference to the private sector and the childminding services that are much underused under the scheme.
Alex Cunningham
Even if there were the physical space, I wonder about the availability of sufficiently trained staff. There is greater demand from parents who want higher-quality staff, but there seems to be no plan to provide staff. That is all the more reason why we should review the measure over some time.
Jess Phillips
I think we have time to do that before the roll-out in 2017. I do not wish to delay it any further than 2017, and the Government have the time to make it right. On the training of staff, speaking from personal experience—my son has special educational needs; he has Asperger’s—I want to ensure that people who work with children such as my son every day have the training, qualifications and skills to make their lives and his life a little simpler, although I have not managed it yet.
Chloe Smith
The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. She argues that the capital funding will not help the private sector. We all recognise that the taxpayer cannot always help the private sector. There is an argument that when a business is successful, it should work on its own merits. Does she agree that the policy proposal in the Bill is a major business opportunity, and that we should encourage the private sector to see it as an investment opportunity in our constituencies?
Jess Phillips
I would agree, if the private nursery sector—I have spoken to nursery staff in my constituency—felt anything other than concern about the funding envelope. That is the main thrust of my argument. If it is left with shortfalls, that is a big risk to take in a difficult economy. I absolutely want new nurseries to spring up and take entrepreneurial risk; we need them to meet the demand, so I would be delighted if they did that. I hope that the Minister and the Government prove me entirely wrong and that loads of brilliant nurseries spring up in spaces where they did not exist before and can afford to offer brilliant childcare that allows women to go back to work, but at the moment I do not see that in the detail of the proposals.
Pat Glass
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in creating new nurseries and new provision is the lack of a suitably qualified workforce? That highlights the problem that one part of Government policy can have an impact on another. There has been an 85% reduction in recruitment for level 3 childcare courses and a 56% shortfall in new applicants since the new requirement for GCSE maths was introduced for apprenticeships.
Jess Phillips
I agree that we need to take a wholesale look at apprenticeships, training and how to encourage people to go into this area of work. I imagine that helping to raise people’s children is one of the greatest gifts, and we need as many people as possible to go into the sector. Unfortunately, if pay rates remain where they are—care work is one of the reasons for the gender pay gap—and unless nurseries massively increase their costs and training budgets, people’s desire to work in the field will not increase.
Mr Gyimah
I would like to give the hon. Lady some encouragement on some of the questions she asked. The number of providers delivering the three and four-year-old entitlement has increased every year since 2011. In 2015, a total of 43,800 providers did so.
The hon. Lady raised a concern about the workforce. The quality of the workforce continues to rise. Between 2008 and 2013, the proportion of full day care staff with at least a level 3 qualification rose from 75% to 87%, and the proportion with a degree or higher rose from 5% to 13%. I hope she finds that encouraging. The number of places is increasing, and staff qualifications are going up.
Jess Phillips
The idea that the number of places are increasing is interesting. I am sure that some nursery providers that did not previously exist have opened their doors, but I think that some that previously did not offer the Government’s scheme are now doing so. Many nurseries in my area that have always existed suddenly have a big banner outside saying, “Free three and four-year old places here”. There is still a supply and demand issue. In his next intervention on me, will the Minister say what happened in 2013? Why did the number go up before then and then stop in 2013, or do we just not have the figures?
Mr Gyimah
I am encouraged by what the hon. Lady says about nurseries advertising the free entitlement, which she said is so underfunded, and having banners outside trying to attract parents. If it is so underfunded and nurseries are losing money by offering it, why are they so keen to advertise it?
Jess Phillips
Perhaps they did not realise and thought the subsidies were bigger. As I said, I would be delighted if the Minister proved me wrong. However, I can almost guarantee that for the next five years after the roll-out, we will see a higher-than-inflation increase in the cost of childcare for parents of children aged nought to three. I really hope I am wrong, but something will have to give. I do not run a nursery, so I do not know—I am basing my comments on the evidence that has been given to me that there will be a massive shortfall. Maybe I will start a nursery—I like to take on new tasks.
As a parent, I know about the effect of growing demand. This year I was one of the many hundreds of thousands of parents who were told that they could no longer access childcare. There may be an increasing number of places and delight about the figures, the graphs and reports that we read, but the reality is different. I was told I could no longer access the childcare I have accessed for my children for years, because demand outstripped supply. That is happening to people every day, regardless of what the figures say. Supply is not growing to meet demand. I currently have no childcare before school for my children, which has fundamentally changed my family’s working habits. It has meant a reduction in the income of my husband, who is the full-time carer of my children. No chart or table will tell me that is not happening when I know it is—it is happening to me and to many other parents I speak to on the school run.
I want to be sure about the graphs, the funding and schemes that are being outlined. All I am asking for is a review of whether the funding will work. As I have said repeatedly, I want the Minster to prove me wrong. I want a review of whether there has been any rise in the costs of wrap-around childcare for children aged nought to three and those over four, like my children, and of how many women fall out of the labour market when their children are aged nought to three. I want to understand whether the Government have got their figures right.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I apologise for making the schoolboy error earlier of not turning my phone to silent and therefore disrupting the Committee. I meant no disrespect, Ms Dorries.
I would have expected the Government to welcome the opportunity of a pause and a review because it would provide a breathing space for them to dig themselves out of a hole. We should remind ourselves of the genesis of the policy of 30 hours a week of childcare which, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, I genuinely welcome. The political genesis of the policy was that my party had offered a fully costed and prepared proposal for 25 hours a week, and the Conservatives entered the general election campaign determined to trump that with 30 hours a week, yet without doing the sums to work out where the money would come from, so I would have expected the Minister to welcome the proposal for a review and pause.
Christian Matheson
That would be handy, because I need to read something from my iPad, which has turned itself off.
Alex Cunningham
I am not sure that that was the role that I had intended to undertake.
The Government have said 30 hours, which trumped our 25 hours, but is that not to be welcomed? An extra five hours a week is a tremendous figure. We want the scheme to work, but we want it to be funded, and all the organisations are saying that there is not enough money and that the estimates are based on the wrong data. The Government need to get it right so that we can all celebrate the wonderful fact that the Tories have trumped the Labour party.
Christian Matheson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I also thank the Minister for, and congratulate him on, the extension to 30 hours, which will be welcomed by parents up and down the country, as long as it works. I do not wish to be churlish and I hope that my comments will be taken in the spirit with which I offer them.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that both main parties promised to increase the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds at the election, with the Labour party saying 25 hours and the Conservatives saying 30. However, we were the only party to commit to two things: a review of the cost of providing childcare; and an increase in the hourly rate. I did not see a reference to any review or increase in rates in the Labour party’s manifesto. We did not just make a promise; we are delivering. What is the basis for the hon. Gentleman’s claim that our pledge cannot be delivered, but Labour’s could have been?
Christian Matheson
I remind the Minister that the Labour party’s proposals—I appreciate that we are not discussing them, and I know your keenness that we stick to the Bill, Ms Dorries—were fully costed. My suspicion is that the Government’s proposals were not costed at the time, but I do not want to provoke your ire, Ms Dorries, so I will not make the same mistake as other colleagues—
Christian Matheson
There will be many beneficiaries of these proposals. I welcomed the hon. Member for Norwich North saying that fathers will benefit because we are moving, although perhaps not as swiftly as we might like, into an age in which fathers have more childcare responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley made the good point that the gender pay gap will continue as long as we have a greater emphasis on maternal childcare, but I will not go into that as we are not on that topic at the moment.
One area that the review might take into account is the effect on providers. If the Committee will allow me, I will quote a constituent, and I may write to the Minister in greater depth about this particular case, because it is quite detailed. There is consternation—or concern, perhaps—that the numbers do not necessarily add up for providers. My constituent tells me that the reality of the current proposals is that
“each hour of extra funding”
for his nursery in Chester
“would mean a potential loss of £1.10, so that’s £16.50 per week per child.”
He continues:
“We have 35 registered children currently, which equates to £577.50 per week, times 14 weeks in this term,”
which means
“£8085.00 per term, or £24,000 per year.”
Those figures are losses due to the shortfall for providers. I do not expect the Minister to respond to that particular case now and I apologise for putting him on the spot without having written to him first, but the example illustrates the concern among providers that the numbers do not add up. A review that included providers would at least give us reassurance, or might identify a problem that needs addressing.
My constituent went on to write:
“The implications of this, coupled with increased rates, fuel costs and the… proposals to increase the national minimum wage, will put the pressure squarely on the providers shoulders, meaning they will either not be able to provide the level of care each parent rightfully demands, or it could even put them out of business”.
Chloe Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a problem in some parts of the country with local authorities not passing on as much of the funding as they ought to? I welcome the spreadsheets with which we have been provided to show that that is happening across the country. As I said on Second Reading, Norfolk County Council holds back 8% of the funding, whereas the figure elsewhere in the country is fractions of that, and I think that that is wrong.
Christian Matheson
I deliberately did not want to quote the whole of a long and quite complicated email from my constituent, but he makes a similar point. I have to say that my local authority of Cheshire West and Chester Council has just had £47 million taken off its annual budget by the Chancellor.
Christian Matheson
I am very close to the end of my speech but, of course, I give way to the Minister.
Mr Gyimah
I want to draw the Committee’s attention to a point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley about the cost of childcare and low funding rates. Central Government give Birmingham £5.49 and it pays £3.83 to providers. If there is a challenge around childcare in that area, it is not because the Government are under-funding childcare, but because of what the local authority is top-slicing. Of course it has to top-slice, but I would like to know why there is such a gap for Birmingham.
Christian Matheson
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but a Minister talking about funding for local authorities as a whole will be skating on thin ice, because such funding is not a good story for the Government.
The Minister may want me to write to him with more details about the case I cited, but childcare providers’ concerns need to be addressed. The review under the clause would give the Government breathing space to ensure that the numbers add up and could reassure providers who are working hard to offer a quality service to parents in my constituency and others.
Mr Gyimah
I have a lot to say, Ms Dorries, and I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship. We have had a long debate on amendment 10. I would like to do three things: provide a bit of context; deal with the amendment and the clause; and address several of the points raised by Opposition Members.
First, on the context, both the Labour and Conservative parties promised to increase free entitlement for three and four-year-olds because we recognise that that will make a difference to parents by helping with the cost of living and enabling them to work more hours. We also know that high-quality childcare makes a big difference to children’s life chances. Both parties share the same objective, and I note that Labour Members supported the Bill on Second Reading.
Both parties can also lay claim to a tradition of making big moves in the childcare sector. The hon. Member for North West Durham talked about the Labour party’s track record. I am proud to say that the Conservative-led Government in the previous Parliament continued that when the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds went up from 12.5 hours to 15 hours. We introduced a new entitlement of 15 hours of early education for disadvantaged two-year-olds. We also introduced the early years pupil premium, which is worth £50 million, so that disadvantaged three and four-year-olds do not fall behind at school. We introduced shared parental leave, which is to be extended to grandparents, and we legislated for tax-free childcare, which means that for every £100 that parents spend on childcare, £20 will come from the taxpayer. That is for parents who are buying additional hours to the existing free entitlement, or who have children younger than three. Parents can use tax-free childcare for children up to the age of 12, and up to 18 in the case of disabled children.
Jess Phillips
I just want to check—partly for my own personal finances—when that tax-free childcare will be available. The Minister says that that has been put in place, but I understand that it is currently not available.
Mr Gyimah
I said that we legislated for that in the previous Parliament. Tax-free childcare will come into effect from 2017. I know the hon. Lady is concerned about the cost of school-based, wrap-around childcare, but she can use tax-free childcare to help to offset the cost of her wrap-around childcare. In addition, parents can get subsidies through childcare tax credits for up to 75% of the cost of childcare, and that figure will be 85% when we move to universal credit. The Bill is part of a package of reforms through which the Government will spend £6 billion in this Parliament to support parents with their childcare.
Pat Glass
While we welcome the moves within universal credit to increase subsidies for childcare from 75% to 85% of the costs, does the Minister accept that there will be a lag? Universal credit will come into being six months after this childcare policy is implemented, so there will be a lag of six months between the two.
Mr Gyimah
Parents can get 75% of their costs paid for today, and that will rise to 85% when universal credit comes into force. That goes to the crux of the measure: no parent will be worse off as a result of the Bill, and no parent will get anything taken away from them as a result of the Bill. This is a new entitlement.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister says that “no parent” will be worse off, but I understand there are differences in the funding arrangements. Nationally, the new funding rate for the three and four-year-old offer is £4.88, including the early years pupil premium funding. All regions except London will see an increase in the hourly rate, but London will lose 65p of funding per child per hour for the extension of the entitlement, with some boroughs losing as much as £4.29 per place. How will that play out for the parents of three and four-year-olds in London?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady talks about the money paid to local authorities. I was making the point that no parent will be worse off in terms of the childcare that they get.
I will come to this in more detail later, but we have announced that we will consult on an early years national funding formula to ensure that we smooth out the allocations for local authorities. It is not fair that one local authority can get £9 an hour and afford to offer 20 hours’ childcare, while another local authority, such as in Birmingham, gets £5 an hour. We need to ensure that a local authority gets the funding that reflects the needs of the children in that local authority, rather than the amount being based on history, as is currently the case. I will come to that point in more detail later.
Alex Cunningham
What the Minister said was quite helpful. In Mid Dorset and North Poole, a week’s childcare costs £94, whereas in the Minister’s constituency of East Surrey, that costs nearly £180. If local authorities are not properly funded to take local circumstances into account, how on earth can they provide the cover that he wants?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman raises precisely the point I am making: we want to fund local authorities fairly to take account of local circumstances. The current funding formula is based on historical fiat and historical local spend; it does not reflect local need. In addition to increasing the hourly rate, we want to consult on a national funding formula to ensure that local authorities get funds that reflect their needs.
Alex Cunningham
In Surrey, the cost of childcare has gone up by 36% in the past five years. It will cost £9,000 for a family with one child to access childcare in Surrey. Is the Minister saying that he will ensure that the county council for the constituency he represents as a Member of Parliament will have sufficient money to fund that level of childcare in the future?
Mr Gyimah
Let me put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest—I am glad he is taking so much interest in my area, rather than his. As a result of the combination of policies that I have talked about, a parent could get up to £40,000 of subsidy towards their childcare for two children. That is how far the Government are going to subsidise parents with the cost of childcare.
We are discussing amendment 10 and clause 1. I understand the arguments made by some members of the Committee about funding for disabled children and children with SEN to support them in accessing the free entitlement, but let me be clear that I do not believe that clause 1, on the funding review, should remain in the Bill.
Before I address the key points, I want to thank hon. Members for their contributions. I particularly thank the hon. Member for North West Durham for her extensive work on improving access to childcare for disabled children. That is clearly an area of her expertise and I thank her for her contribution to the debate. I also want to put on record that, beyond our line-by-line scrutiny in Committee, I want to work with her and officials on how we can improve access to childcare for disabled children, so I invite her to the Department to discuss that.
I want to be very clear that the Government believe that parents with disabled children should have the same opportunities as other parents via increased choice of and access to high-quality childcare. The Government’s commitment to improving the system for children with SEN and disabilities was strongly demonstrated in the previous Parliament, during which we legislated through the Children and Families Act 2014 to introduce the biggest reform to the SEN and disability system for 30 years. The reforms, which introduced a nought-to-25 system, with an emphasis on early identification and the importance of integration between education, health and social care for children across the age range, were supported on both sides of the House.
Ruth Cadbury
The Minister listed three factors in the review of disabled children’s education, but he did not use the word “childcare”. The parents of disabled children want to be able to work as well as to have good care, education and social services support, so will childcare be part of the review that he has just mentioned?
Mr Gyimah
I am coming to precisely that point. The changes will not solve all issues in the system overnight, but they are at the early stages of implementation and are starting to make a real difference for families. As I pointed out in relation to funding for parents of disabled children, tax-free childcare for families with disabled children will provide support of up to £40,000 until the child turns 18. So, from nought to 18, a parent with a disabled child will get twice the allowance that a parent with a non-disabled child will get through tax-free childcare.
I recognise that the extensive work carried out by the parliamentary inquiry into childcare for disabled children, co-chaired by the hon. Member for North West Durham, found that some parents have difficulties accessing childcare. That is disappointing. I am clear that the entitlement to 15 hours’ early education is for all children. It is not acceptable for children with disabilities to be unable to access their entitlement.
Alex Cunningham
As the Minister knows, 40% of families with disabled children are not accessing care, which is 10 times more than in the wider population. I accept that there is sufficient money, but how do we ensure that there is the expertise needed in all our nurseries to provide the expert care that meets the specific needs of disabled children?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The truth is that disabled children have very different needs. There are a range of needs, which is why I would like to work with the hon. Member for North West Durham.
I will develop my argument further on how we can make sure we have the right expertise in the right setting. For some disabled children there needs to be an overlap between early education and nursing care, and in some situations there also needs to be a speech and language therapist, or a music therapist, on hand. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to childcare for disabled children. We need to work out the right way to do this, and if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will make some suggestions during my speech.
Local authorities are required by law to secure free entitlement places for parents who want their children to take them up. There is a clear legal position enabling all three and four-year-olds to receive 15 hours of early education, and it is clear in the Bill that all such children are eligible to receive an additional 15 hours. Local authorities are also under a duty in the Childcare Act 2006 to ensure that there is sufficient childcare in their area. The requirement is for all children, and it is not acceptable if there are no places for children who have additional needs.
Jess Phillips
I recognise what the Minister says, but if a report does state otherwise, will he change his mind?
Mr Gyimah
No, I would definitely like to see the report. Of the £1 billion, £300 million is for a significant uplift to the rate paid for two, three and four-year-old entitlements. We have increased the rate not just for the three and four-year-old entitlement, as promised at the election, but for the two-year-old entitlement. The new average hourly rate—we have to be clear about it—is £4.88 for three and four-year-olds and £5.39 for two-year-olds, and the equivalent rate per carer, for three and four-year-olds, is £39. The uplift will apply to all children accessing the free entitlement.
We did not stop there, however. We also announced £50 million of capital funding to help providers who wish to expand and increase the number of places they are able to offer, as well as committing to a fairer funding distribution through the introduction of a national funding formula for early years. Neither of those elements, which are critical to a comprehensive and sustainable system, is mentioned in the clause.
Introducing a fairer funding formula for early years is essential. Current funding for early years varies considerably around the country, enabling some areas to offer parents additional hours of provision above the statutory 15 hours a week. The additional investment is a strong signal of the importance that the Government place on early years, and of our desire to help hard-working parents back to work and help them with the cost of living.
The rate increase is underpinned by the comprehensive review of the cost of childcare that was published on 25 November. The review was based on the best published evidence available, with additional evidence being collected through the review itself. Some 2,000 pieces of evidence from the childcare sector were reviewed, and every major childcare organisation contributed to the review. Childcare providers generously even provided their own profit and loss accounts so that we could identify and understand how their cost base worked. We promised the view at the election, and we have delivered on that promise. It is the most comprehensive bottom-up analysis of the cost of childcare provision in the country, and I have no doubt that hon. Members will agree with the rigorous, evidence-based approach we have taken to the analysis.
On how the review was conducted, it was led by the Department for Education’s chief analyst, who analysed the best published evidence and went the extra mile by collecting additional evidence throughout the review. The review examined the cost of childcare provision at provider level and considered all evidence on the current demand for and supply of childcare places for two, three and four-year-olds, for whom there is free entitlement. It also considered cost pressures that providers will need to meet in future, including the national living wage, and found that there is scope for providers to be more efficient, for example by reducing under-occupancy.
That analysis has allowed us to understand the funding needs of the sector and gain better insight into the characteristics of a diverse market and how it might respond to deliver the entitlement.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the Minister for describing the review. He mentions under-occupancy. Has he had the chance to analyse how childcare providers can deal with occupancy figures and capacity, given that many parents work uneven hours, shift work and so on, and other parents are on flexible contracts? How does the Minister expect childcare providers to operate at high occupancy rates when so many parents work different hours in different weeks?
Mr Gyimah
There is significant scope for looking at under-occupancy, and we want to work with the sector. Most nursery providers say that they are very busy on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and less so on Mondays and Fridays. Some nurseries price their offer in such a way as to encourage parents to take up the quiet times, when there are still staff costs but no parents taking up the offer. There are ways to make that possible.
Ruth Cadbury
It is generous of the Minister to consider the needs of childcare providers, but how does that work given that it is the employers of those parents who determine the hours for which they need the childcare offer?
Mr Gyimah
If a childcare provider wants to say to parents, “This is how we price; it is a market,” parents can pick and choose the spots that work best for them. We are saying that there is more scope to look at under-occupancy. It may work for some providers and not for others. We will work with the sector on that.
As I said, the review had extensive input from the whole sector. I will name some of the key organisations that provided input: the National Day Nurseries Association, the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years, the Family and Childcare Trust and Contact a Family, as well as providers that attended round-tables that we held in the summer. The review does not just reflect costs in the south-east and London, because those round-tables were held around the country. I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who contributed to such a significant achievement, with the review being the first of its kind.
We are debating the impact of the provisions on children with additional needs, and the review also considered the impact on the cost of provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We held thematic discussions on childcare for children with additional needs, including special educational needs and disabilities. The review found that the nature and level of support required by those children can vary significantly, as does the prevalence of additional needs across each setting. The cost estimates reported in the review made allowances for some of those factors.
Our analysis of the responses to the call for evidence also highlighted that providing for children with additional needs, special educational needs and disabilities drives up costs for providers, particularly salaries. That is because children may need more one-to-one support, and there may be a need for greater involvement of other services—for example, health services or therapists—to support the provider in caring for the child. I saw that for myself when I visited Bath Opportunity pre-school, a specialist nursery providing childcare for children aged nought to five with a range of additional needs. The pre-school delivered excellent care for the children, but it was clear that the cost of delivering that care depended on children’s level of need. To deliver that care, the provider needs to work closely with a range of agencies, supported by the local authority to access funding from the high needs block, which is for ages nought to 25.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister heard me raise earlier the issue mentioned by Contact a Family, about the early years single funding formula. Is he saying that the higher-level funding will compensate and provide sufficient funding for people with a disabled child, who are finding the costs extremely high?
Mr Gyimah
First, I have outlined how parents could get tax-free childcare. Secondly, we confirmed in the spending review that there will be protection for high-needs funding, which will ensure that it rises in proportion to the number of children, including those under five. For parents with disabled children, there will be a number of funding sources to help them buy childcare provision based on their needs.
Alex Cunningham
Is the Minister reassuring the Committee that a person with a disabled child will not be disadvantaged financially in any way whatever, in comparison with a person with a child who does not have a disability, when they come to buy childcare?
Mr Gyimah
By having tax-free childcare and the high needs block, and also by having increased the hourly rate, we will ensure that local authorities continue to have the flexibility to target funding where it is most needed to help children with disabilities and their families, including the youngest children.
Pat Glass
I hear what the Minister is saying about the high needs block of grant funding, but will he not accept that local authorities such as mine have lost 40% of their funding? They argue that the funding that goes into the high needs block is insufficient in itself to fund education for children who have statements or education and social care plans—the statutory bit. They will therefore not be able to find money to fund the non-statutory bit, which is childcare, even if they want to, which they do.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady pre-empts my next point. When it comes to funding for children with additional needs, we know that one size does not fit all. That is why I have committed to considering early years funding for children with special educational needs and disabilities as part of our wider consultation on allocation and a fairer funding system in 2016—specifically to look at the issue that the hon. Lady points out.
However, we also know, going back to a previous point, that access is not just about funding. We have heard throughout this debate that although funding is important, it is not the only issue. I am sure that in a later debate we will talk about how the workforce support children with additional needs, but the way in which local authorities and providers work together to ensure that all children access their entitlement goes beyond funding into how services work together and how the workforce are supported. I therefore want very clearly to commit that as part of our early implementation of 30 hours from September 2016, we will seek to encourage innovative approaches to providing flexible childcare for working parents whose children are disabled or have special educational needs. I am sure that the hon. Lady will have a view on that when we sit down to discuss how we can make that happen.
I would now like to talk more widely about clause 1 and why I do not believe it should stand part of the Bill.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for taking another intervention. He said about 10 minutes ago that he would address the issue of staffing to ensure that there is the necessary level of expertise in nurseries so that they can offer appropriate support for children with disabilities. I do not know whether he intends to address that later in his speech, but it appears that he is moving on, so I would appreciate it if he addressed it now.
Mr Gyimah
I believe that there is an amendment specifically on the workforce. When we debate that, we can debate all the staffing issues together. I want to focus on amendment 10 and clause 1.
Clause 1 was introduced in the other place in response to concerns about a lack of detail about how the Government would fund their commitment to provide 30 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds. Critically, it was also about the opportunity to scrutinise how that would be done. Before the Bill was introduced, we committed to increasing the rate paid to providers that was announced by the Prime Minister in March, and to a comprehensive review of the cost of childcare.
Alex Cunningham
No one wants to delay the implementation of this fantastic policy, but the review, and the consideration of the issues that were raised in the other place, could happen in parallel without inhibiting that implementation. They would inform it considerably and perhaps make it possible to get the right numbers, which we need to understand the cost and the number of placements available. Surely the Minister accepts that something could be done in parallel, and that he does not have anything to fear from that.
Mr Gyimah
I do not see the case for a further independent review after a review has been held. The autumn statement set the Government’s budget and spending plans for the entirety of the Parliament. We have a very generous settlement: we will be spending £2.9 billion in 2018-19, having spent £2.8 billion in the last Parliament. That is a significant increase.
Finally, Members have asked questions about the detail in the Bill. The hon. Member for North West Durham is a veteran of childcare debates in this House, and I say to her that regulations are the right place for much of the detail. The full eligibility criteria, and the details about the childcare providers that local authorities are required to fund for the current entitlement, will all sit in regulations. The previous Labour Government made the same choice. We set out our intentions in a series of policy statements, and the regulations will be subject to the highest degree of parliamentary scrutiny.
Pat Glass
I accept that on previous occasions much of the detail on childcare has been in regulations. The difference is that there has previously been some detail in the Bill. The concerns raised in the other place and by the Opposition today are about the singular lack of detail in the Bill. That is why we are concerned about so much being pushed into regulations.
Mr Gyimah
As I said, the regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that hon. Members will agree that the proposals in clause 1 have been fully met through the completion of a robust and evidence-based review and a substantial financial settlement. It is important that we consider one of the key reasons why the clause was inserted in the other place—namely, concern that the Bill would not be scrutinised by Parliament in the light of spending decisions. I understand that concern, but we are now scrutinising the Bill line by line, with further stages of debate ahead. It may not have been the intention of the other place to delay the implementation of additional free childcare by inserting the clause, but I am clear that setting up an independent review would risk delay. I therefore believe that clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Member for North West Durham will feel reassured enough to withdraw amendment 10.
Pat Glass
I started this morning by saying that we support the Bill. We want to see it have a fair wind, but we have a number of concerns about the lack of detail in it. It is particularly lacking in detail about funding. I am somewhat reassured that we now appear to have £1 billion, but that leaves us still almost £0.6 billion short of the figure mentioned in the independent review, so there is still a major funding gap. We want to help the Government persuade their lordships that the Bill is sustainable and deliverable.
The Minister is not being fair when he refuses to accept that there is an existing cross-subsidy in the system, and that the current 15-hour offer is underfunded and is subsidised by parents who are taking more than 15 hours. We have real concerns that if the number is increased to 30 hours, it will remove the opportunity for that cross-subsidisation and push the cost down in the system, so that there will be a sharp increase in the cost of childcare for babies, one year-olds and two year-olds. It will produce an ongoing squeeze on costs elsewhere, and our real concern is that as a result, quality will suffer.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady has repeated the claim about £1.6 billion that she made on Second Reading. That figure predates the funding uplift and ignores the eligibility criteria that we have introduced and the savings we get through working tax credit and tax-free childcare. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw that comment, given that it ignores all those facts, which we have known about since the spending review.
Pat Glass
I am sorry, but from what the Minister has said today he has not convinced me that we have the funding we need to deliver this policy. I think he will have to try harder. He is refusing to accept that cross-subsidisation underpins the system. If we pull away the opportunities for that cross-subsidisation, it will either squeeze costs somewhere else or affect staffing ratios and quality.
Jess Phillips
Following the Minister’s intervention, is my hon. Friend as worried as I am about the fact that the Government are now saying they can afford the new measures because of the change in eligibility? Earlier, the argument was that eligibility had not reduced access for anyone. How has eligibility reduced the cost of the policy—is it because people cannot now get access to the offer?
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous with her time. My point is that before the spending review, as before any spending review, there was wild speculation about what Government promises made in their manifesto will cost. Until the Government have actually set out the detail of a policy, that is all speculation. Since the spending review we have made clear who is eligible and provided the money to fund it, so it is wrong for hon. Members to keep referring to speculative figures that were published before the spending review.
Pat Glass
I have looked at the IPPR document and the Government’s review of the cost of childcare, and there is hugely more detail in the IPPR document than in the review. The Minister has referred to the review several times, and I have it here. My reading is that it does not take account of cross-subsidisation.
Childcare Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and I look forward to doing so over the next few days. I was talking about the review outlined in the clause, which will be ongoing and in parallel with the policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North said. There would therefore be no delay to implementation, so we are not sure why the Minister is concerned about having that review.
The review would look at the ongoing sustainability of the policy. When as a director of education I was implementing any kind of policy, I had what I used to call a Libby test: I would talk through what I wanted to do with a member of staff and she would tell me, almost immediately, everything that was wrong with it and where it would fail. That informal consultation helped me and let me know where opposition would come from. Alongside all the formal consultation, as we implemented policies incrementally I found it useful to keep going back to her to test them out, because she would tell me exactly what headteachers were saying and where the problems were. The review would be something like the Libby test. It is about the Government making sure that the policy is sustainable as we move towards implementation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
The hon. Lady outlines precisely the idea underlying the early implementers, which we announced will happen in the second half of 2016 to test local demand, innovation and how parents respond to the offer. If she is saying that she wants to see that activity, I am certainly with her. If however she is suggesting that we should have further discussion about funding that was settled in explicit terms in the spending review, I am not with her.
Pat Glass
My understanding of the early implementers is that they are few: fewer than four children per authority if spread across the country. Therefore, unless the Minister can tell me otherwise, I cannot see how that is a major testing out of the policy. The review is about making sure that it is sustainable. We all want it to work; we just want it to work right.
Mr Gyimah
Five thousand children will benefit early from the policy as a result of the early implementers, but alongside that we will be testing a number of other things such as the eligibility checking system that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is working on, which will be joined with tax-free child care; policy and practice around special educational needs and disability; and innovation around flexibility. Therefore, in addition to the 5,000 children who will get in early, we will look at a whole number of other things during the early implementation stage.
Pat Glass
We are grateful for that, but, as I said, 5,000 children across the country is not a huge number on which to test out sustainability, and funding sustainability in particular.
The Minister has talked a lot about funding, but he has not convinced me that he has filled that massive funding gap. It is not just me, their lordships or the Institute for Public Policy Research who are saying that, but the sector as a whole. There seems to be an inability to accept the true cost of childcare.
The Minister talked a lot about his review of childcare costs. There were lots of things I could not find in it, but in particular I could not find any kind of building in of future costs. We know that the sector will face costs in future such as the apprenticeship levy. We all agree with the apprenticeship levy, which is a great idea, but the childcare sector has a high number of apprentices. Therefore, whether we agree with the apprenticeship levy or not, we must accept that it will be an additional cost on the sector.
The sector has talked to me a lot about the implementation of the living wage, which is not only about implementing a minimum wage for those at the bottom, as the Chancellor seems to think. There are differentials and they are very slim, so if we implement the living wage, which will now be the minimum wage for those at the bottom, on the least wages, we have to increase the wages of those who are level 3-qualified, of graduate leads and of managers—all slim differentials. The sector is telling me that that is not built into the review.
Mr Gyimah
On the subject of future costs, I want to put something on the record. We want providers to take steps to absorb some of the future cost pressures. As a result, we have front-loaded the uplift to help providers do so, and we have done that even though the cost of childcare review found that the average cost of delivering the three and four-year-old entitlement is £4.25, which is below our existing national average rate of £4.56. We want to work with providers to become more efficient—
Pat Glass
I thank the Minister. That is helpful, because there is a lot of confusion around the funding. I will come on to £4.56 average rate in a minute.
Other future costs appear not to have been taken into account in the review, such as rising business rates or top-slicing by local authorities. The hon. Member for Norwich North talked about local authorities top-slicing anywhere from about 2% to about 9%. The budget used to be ring-fenced—it was ring-fenced in 2010, but the current Government took away the ring fence and have allowed the top-slicing to go on. It would be easy to put the ring fence back.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady knows very well that the early years funding is part of the dedicated schools grant, so local authorities cannot dip into it to spend on, say, potholes. On the issue of top-slicing, we will set a firm expectation for local authorities of how much they may top-slice, alongside our review of the early years national funding formula, so that the majority of the funds goes directly to providers.
Pat Glass
Honestly, don’t get me started on the early years funding. As I understand it, it was ring-fenced and it was an early years grant, but in 2011 it was amalgamated with 14 other grants into the early intervention grant, which covered everything from special educational needs through early years funding to behaviour support. It was huge and now it has been rolled into something else, so it is difficult, even for local authorities that want to deliver the funding, to weave their way through to what is actually early years funding. I will come on to the funding review in a moment.
I have read the cost of childcare report; it contains massive assumptions and an awful lot of complacency. The assumptions include things such as switching; the report simply makes the assumption that because parents do not switch their provider often they are satisfied. Anyone who has talked to parents knows that there are costs to switching that are not taken into account. Most parents do not want to shift their child from one childcare provider to another when the child is settled and has built up relationships, even if they cannot afford that childcare any longer or even if they have found a cheaper provider. Parents will cut out all sorts of other things to ensure that they do not have to shift their children constantly from one provider to another. It is not the same as switching electricity supplier, and we know how difficult people find that.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that 85% of the two, three and four-year-olds who receive funded education are in good or outstanding early years schools, as rated by Ofsted? That provision was supplied at a rate less than the future rate.
Pat Glass
As we are talking about three and four-year-olds, I am not sure that is relevant, but I am happy to accept it.
The Minister talked about under-occupancy. He is right that there is 75% to 90% occupancy. However, occupancy is much higher on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday than it is on a Monday and Friday. I know that the Minister will say that we can extend the 30 hours, but many families choose or are able to find familial childcare for Monday and Friday, so I am not sure that will necessarily provide him with his extra hours.
We have talked about the risks. The Minister and the review do not seem to accept the cross-subsidisation that is going on between the 15 hours and the rest. Childcare providers tell me clearly that they are only able to provide the 15 hours of free childcare because they charge more for any additional hours that parents want, or they charge for meals or other things, so that they can deliver the 15 hours. There is a real danger if we extend this without the right kind of funding to support it that it will come out in other areas. The squeeze will be on in other areas, and the cost of childcare for babies, one-year-olds and two-year-olds will rise sharply.
Mr Gyimah
The childcare sector has a record amount of money going into it as a result of the spending review. The hon. Lady argues somehow, on whatever basis I do not know, that is not enough. Can she tell us what she considers is the right funding rate for three and four-year-olds?
Pat Glass
The Minister makes it sound as though I am making this up. I reached this view by talking to the sector. I spoke to all the people who contributed to the costs of childcare report as recently as last night. They told me they do not know how it came up with the results it did, given the data they input and the discussions that they had. I am not making this up; that is what the sector tells me.
Mr Gyimah
Of course, that is what happens when the Government go out and say we will increase the rate, and we will undertake a review to find out what the new rate will be. Do not be surprised if lots of people say the rate is not enough. This is based on evidence that we were supplied with. We have compared the rates here with the rates in their own reports that they published, and the new rate is more than adequate. If the hon. Lady disagrees, can she tell us what she thinks is the right rate?
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if a political party puts in a manifesto an offer of 30 hours a week free childcare to parents of three and four-year-olds, that is what the offer is? Does she not agree that voters would therefore expect that that is funded and that the political party hoping to be in government, and now in government, is prepared to fund it to the level that delivers that offer?
Pat Glass
That is absolutely right. The offer made in May this year was 30 hours a week of free childcare. It is not now 30 hours a week free childcare to parents who are working more than eight hours. The thresholds have increased and the numbers of people eligible have gone down. As I said on Second Reading, any parent who voted Conservative on the basis of that offer will be feeling seriously short-changed now.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
There seems to be a bit of confusion. The whole point of the clause we are debating is that we sit back with the sector, private providers, to find out what the correct levels are. In view of that and given the confusion, does my hon. Friend agree that what is in the Bill, as it stands, would actually be a good idea for the sector?
Pat Glass
That is exactly what we are arguing. There is confusion here, and we are not happy. I have listened to the Minister, but he has not convinced me that the necessary funding is there. There may be more than there was a couple of weeks ago, but the necessary funding is not there, which is why we believe that an ongoing review is a good idea.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Some of the things that the Minister has said in the past add to the confusion. He was quoted as saying that the increase in childcare entitlement by 10 hours would cost an additional £1.6 billion. He talks about £1 billion and extra money in the spending review. Numbers seem to be coming out of hats all over the place. Does anybody really know what funding is available?
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree, though, that it has to be not only affordable for providers, but sustainable for taxpayers? We are putting £2.6 billion in, and there is only a limited amount of money.
Pat Glass
I absolutely agree, but I did not make an offer of 30 hours of free childcare in May 2015—the Government did.
I want to move on to amendment 10. I am happy to take up the Minister’s offer of working with him to look at how we can extend the take-up of childcare for disabled children. However, I am not sure how I feel about going back to the Department for Education, given that I worked there before 2010. Perhaps we can meet in a coffee shop or something, but I am very happy to work with him.
I agree with the Minister that the issues around children and access, as regards children being able to access education in schools or childcare for disabled children, are not always about money. Some are, but in my experience, an awful lot of this is about confidence. I have worked with schools on many occasions, although not with childcare providers because that was not necessarily my area of expertise, to try and get them to the point at which they can admit a child who has a disability—who has something they have not seen before, who has something really unusual.
I remember one child, a lovely little boy; I think he is probably about 16 now. He had very little movement—a little bit of head movement, but nothing much more. Those at the school were terrified. They were really worried—it was quite a long time ago, and I think it would be fairly routine now—but we worked with the school. At that time, another child at the school had a little bit of learning difficulty and a little bit of physical difficulty, but nothing huge across the piece, and every time I spoke to the headteacher, he would mention that little boy.
Once the child who had very little movement was admitted, when I saw the headteacher again I asked how Fred—I think that was the other boy’s name—was getting on. He said, “Oh, we’re not worried about that at all. Do you know what? He’s no bother.” As soon as the staff at the school had the confidence, training and support—the support was really important—and admitted children with quite significant difficulties, they were really proud of themselves and of how well they had done, and they were looking to admit the next child with another serious disability. I think much of it is about a little bit of training. Some of it is about money, but a lot is about confidence and giving those childcare providers the confidence that they are not on their own.
The Minister talked about Government reforms and I welcome their reforms on special educational needs and disability. They are a huge step in the right direction. We wish them well. The difficulty, as he would expect me to say, is that these are being implemented at a time when local authority budgets are being significantly cut. Therefore, there is sometimes a very difficult financial circle for local authorities to square.
The Minister talked about the funding already in the system to tackle the problems that disabled children have in not getting access to the 15 hours of childcare. He talked about the higher rate of funding block, but, as I pointed out in an intervention, my understanding is that local authorities are really struggling to provide the statutory provision that they need to support statements and the education, health and social care plans that fall within the statutory sector, and very few have leeway with funding to support the non-statutory bit, which is the childcare sector.
On the review of fair funding, the Minister and I entertained each other one Thursday evening on the graveyard shift a few weeks ago. I was amazed that something like 35 Government Members turned out. One of the things that was said, to which I did not respond at the time, was that the Labour Government did nothing about this. That is not true. I was working in the DFE at the time. I am probably the collective wisdom from the DFE now, because I am not sure that many people who were there are here.
I want to put a hypothetical case to the Minister. If he were to seek legal advice on this, I suspect it would tell him that there is a direct line between those authorities—largely but not all metropolitan—that have high council tax, and those that funded education above the standard spending assessments, because this is all historical. There is still what I think ought to be referred to as a golden thread between those authorities that pay high council tax and those whose schools are highly funded.
If the Minister were to seek legal advice, he would find that there is probably a remedy for those authorities that have low council tax and low funding for schools. They can have a referendum and raise council tax and pass it on to their schools. The Minister may therefore find that his legal advice would tell him that if he were simply to transfer funds across, his chances of winning a judicial review against the big beasts of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and so on would not be bonny.
Pat Glass
No, I do not think that is right and I would not defend it at all. However, I think that if the Minister is simply going to redistribute existing funding—to level it down—he may find he has legal problems. If he tries to level it up, there will be no problems at all.
The highest rate of funding block is insufficient to address statutory needs. I listened to what the Minister said about tax-free childcare. As he quite rightly said, this is about the Government topping up a bank account, into which the parent will put £800 and the Government will top up to £1,000 for each child. However, that is not realistic for most parents of children with disabilities.
As I said earlier, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation evidence highlighted that disabled children are most likely to live in poverty, that it costs three times as much to raise a disabled child as it does to raise a child without a disability, that families of disabled children are two and a half times more likely to have no parent working for more than 16 hours a week in paid employment, that only 16% of mothers of disabled children work, compared with 61% of all mothers, and that 83% of parent carers say that lack of suitable childcare is the main barrier to work. Most parents of disabled children are not going to be sitting around with a spare £800 per child. Some families will be helped, but the funding will not help across the piece.
Pat Glass
That helps, but I do not think parents of disabled children have huge amounts of money lying around that they can use for this. However, it will help and we are grateful for that.
We remain concerned at the funding gap, despite what the Minister says. We believe that his policy is underfunded and we are concerned about the risks that could result—less provision, less choice for parents, diminishing quality and sharp rises in childcare for younger children. We remain convinced that an ongoing review would help to make the policy work and deliver what we all want, but we will not press clause stand part to a vote. On amendment 10, however, I believe that the Minister is well meaning, but nothing he has said today has convinced me that anything will change for families of disabled children, so we will seek to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
We have also debated clause 1 stand part, so the question is that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye; of the contrary, no.
The Chair
Order. The motion is very straightforward: that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. If the Government wish clause 1 to stand part of the Bill, they vote aye. If they do not wish clause 1 to stand part of the Bill, they vote no. I will try again, for the benefit of the Front Benchers. The question is that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye; of the contrary, no.
The Chair
I think the Noes have it, on the basis of the Minister shouting no.
Clause 1 disagreed to.
The Chair
For the benefit of Members, what that means is that by your shout, Minister, you have voted with your colleagues to remove clause 1 from the Bill. If that was your intention, you have done it. If that was not your intention, I suggest you talk to the Whips’ Office in due course, because you will be in trouble.
Pat Glass
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 17, after ‘work’, insert
‘, voluntary work or full-time education course’.
This amendment would also allow those parents who undertake voluntary work or who are in full time education with the intention of retraining for the workforce to access 30 hours of free childcare.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 22, at end insert—
‘(ca) specify other circumstances in which a person is to be regarded as in such work where they are the parent of an eligible child who is disabled;’
This amendment probes on the definition of working parents, and specifically when the parent or parents of a disabled three to four year-old child will be considered as eligible for the additional 15 hours of free childcare.
Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
‘(4A) In making regulations under subsection 4, the Secretary of State must set out in what circumstances a parent or partner who—
(a) is a zero hours worker, as defined under section 27B (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996,
(b) varies the hours they work on a weekly basis, or
(c) varies the hours they work across the year,
will be considered to meet any conditions relating to paid work.’
This is a probing amendment to clarify eligibility for those parents whose patterns of work will vary day to day and week to week. This would include parents who are on zero hours contracts, parents who work flexibly or seasonal hours, and parents who are self-employed.
Pat Glass
Amendments 8, 9 and 12 are all linked by the question of eligibility. As we have heard in the other place and here, the Government started with a manifesto promise of 30 hours’ free childcare to parents who worked more than eight hours a week, but we are now looking at something less than that. Early analysis has suggested that the Bill will remove from eligibility significant numbers of low-paid parents who had thought that they would be eligible. Through this series of amendments that we will be considering today, and perhaps on Thursday, I want to explore eligibility with the Minister. These are probing amendments so that we can be very clear about who is eligible.
Alex Cunningham
This is not just about people who good things working with charities and so on, but about people who want to go out and get work experience, because they tried to get on an interview panel for a job but were rejected because they did not have any experience. This gives them an opportunity; if they were to get childcare, they could get the experience and then get into work at a later stage.
Pat Glass
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention; he is absolutely right.
For critically ill or disabled children, access to good-quality childcare is particularly significant, because their families are far more vulnerable to living in poverty than most. Childhood illness and disability are frequently attributable to poverty, because those families incur additional ongoing expenses relating to their child’s illnesses, stays in hospital and frequent hospital and medical appointments. They also often encounter significant barriers to entering and, possibly more importantly, sustaining employment, exactly as my hon. Friend said.
The reality for many of those parents is that they live in poverty; that it will cost them more to raise their child; that they will not be able to get paid work for more than 16 hours a week; that they will not be able to work at all; and that local authorities will simply not have the kind of childcare necessary, with the training needed to meet their child’s medical or other needs. Parents in such circumstances pay more for childcare; as we have heard, in some areas they can pay up to £20 an hour, compared with the national average of between £3.50 and £4.50 an hour.
Lucy Frazer
Without commenting on the substance of what the hon. Lady is saying, clause 2(3) states:
“The conditions mentioned in subsection (2)(d) may, in particular, relate to the paid work”—
that is “may”, not must. This is a matter, I assume, to be dealt with in regulations.
Pat Glass
That is precisely why we are probing the Minister’s thinking.
That is the reality for too many families. The amendment would include in eligibility parents who, through no fault of their own, are unable to work in paid employment and therefore might fall outside the eligibility criteria for access to the additional 15 hours of childcare. In all honesty, who needs that childcare more than those parents? They give up so much to support the medical needs of their children. Sadly, for some parents the issue will be temporary, and in time they will be able to pick up their lives. For many more, however, mainly mothers, but also fathers, the proposed measure will mean being unable to enter the paid workforce throughout the life of their child.
My own extended family felt the shock of a diagnosis of leukaemia for a small relative. The immediate family were living and working in west Cumbria at the time. Both parents were working and they had two little girls. The child who was ill was admitted to the Royal Victoria infirmary in Newcastle, which was the centre for childhood cancers in the northern region. She was admitted for long periods of treatment, and her mum stayed with her. Her mum had to resign from her job because no timescale was given for the treatment, which ultimately lasted years. Eventually, the strain on the family caused by the father and the other child living on one side of the country and the mother and the ill child living on the other meant that the father also gave up his job and resettled the entire family in the north-east, near the specialist hospital. That is the reality for many families.
The father took the opportunity to return to education and retrain. He did voluntary work in local schools until he qualified and was able to work as a teacher and support his family. He has done that for the last 20 years. Good-quality, free childcare would have been really helpful to that family. I remember the younger child, who would have gone to anyone because she was so used to being passed around like a parcel. Good-quality childcare is important to families in similar situations today.
Amendment 8 would allow families in such difficult circumstances to access the additional 15 hours of childcare, and I suggest to the Minister that no working families would benefit more. I am not asking for a great deal—I am not asking the Government to change the eligibility details and so on. However, will the Minister consider extending eligibility to parents who are doing voluntary work and satisfy the hours requirement?
Moving on to amendment 12, I want to probe what is meant by “working parent” for the purposes of the Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister gave details of exactly what it means. It has been said that it will include unpaid work, but will it? How will it work for the self-employed and those who move between self-employment and employment? What will be the impact on parents who work but do not necessarily receive payment for that work? I want to probe specifically how the definition will apply to the parents of disabled children. We have already heard that 40% of those parents are unable to access the 15 hours to which they are currently entitled, which is 10 times more than families with non-disabled children. A lack of suitably qualified and trained staff and a lack of confidence among providers prevent them from accessing that childcare.
We have heard that childhood disability is often a trigger for poverty, because families incur additional ongoing expenses and face significant barriers that the rest of us do not. We have also heard about the additional costs that go along with that and the fact that mothers of disabled children cannot work at all.
The Minister said he wanted to work with me to improve the take-up of free childcare by families of disabled children, but he was not prepared to support an amendment to increase the hourly rate. With amendment 12, we want to explore eligibility so that it is clear what we mean by “working parent” and what impact that will have on parents of disabled children.
Does the Minister’s offer to work with me to improve the take-up of childcare include a desire to look at eligibility and additional hours? We want to ensure that more families can access their entitlement, and that more mothers, and indeed fathers, of disabled children can go out to work, so that over time we can take more and more families with disabled children out of poverty. This is a probing amendment, and we simply want to see how far the Minister is prepared to go.
On amendment 9, the Bill states:
“The Secretary of State must secure that childcare is available free of charge for qualifying children of working parents for, or for a period equivalent to, 30 hours in each of 38 weeks in any year.”
It continues:
“The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of discharging the duty imposed by section 2(1)”
and specifies that those regulations may, for example, include
“enabling any person to check whether a child is a qualifying child of working parents…make provision about the disclosure of information held by a Minister of the Crown, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or”
any other person.
Clause 3(5) states that
“a criminal offence created by…regulations may not provide for a penalty of imprisonment on conviction on indictment”
of more than two years—so someone can get two years in jail. This is really serious stuff.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
On that point, it sounds dramatic to suggest that people might go to prison for this, but I have worked with women in refuges who have ended up in prison because their children did not go to school for a variety of reasons. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is alarming?
Pat Glass
I am shocked that women end up in prison because their children will not go to school. It is not necessarily something that a mother living in a refuge, separately, can do anything about. This is serious stuff, and it is really scary stuff for parents. If they get it wrong, they could end up in prison or with a hefty fine. It is really important that the Committee probes exactly what is meant by eligibility. I want to see how far the Minister is prepared to go on that, because I am not quite clear about who is eligible and who is not. He needs to help us with that.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that there should be penalties for what is, essentially, fraudulent activity, but that the thresholds for those penalties and the circumstances in which they come to play should be set out very clearly in the guidance?
James Berry
Does the hon. Lady agree that there ought to be penalties when a parent takes an action that is tantamount to fraud on the state, but that the circumstances in which those penalties might arise should be specified clearly in the guidance?
Pat Glass
That is exactly what we are asking for in this probing amendment. Yes, I agree that there need to be penalties if someone is deliberately defrauding the state. I do not want to get parents into a situation in which they are affected unintentionally because the guidance or the eligibility criteria are not clear.
Jess Phillips
I wonder whether my hon. Friend, like me, has ever tried to follow the guidance on child tax credits, or whether she has ever had anyone in her constituency office who has fallen foul of some of the guidance laid out by different Government Departments offering state-subsidised childcare. Potentially, we could have put every single person in prison.
Pat Glass
I have not personally ever tried to follow the guidance, because I have no children who would qualify for childcare, although I do have grandchildren. Many people who have come to my constituency surgeries have found themselves with huge tax credits bills to pay back. They never intended to get into that situation in the first place; it was not about trying to defraud the system. These things are complex, and we want to ensure that the provision is as simple as we can make it so that parents do not get into these kinds of difficulties.
How will the eligibility of parents whose patterns of work vary from day to day and week to week be assessed and monitored? Those people include parents on zero-hours contracts, those on flexible working hours, seasonal workers and those who are self-employed, whose hours of work and income are often entirely outside their control. What all those workers have in common is the need for their working hours and incomes to be averaged over a period of time. The way we work today is not the regularised pattern of eight hours a day, five days a week with weekends off. Look at the Members of this Committee—it is not the way we work, and it is not the way that most people work these days.
Many parents have several jobs and sometimes juggle taking care of their children with a couple of part-time jobs. The reality is that many families in my constituency work in self-employment because there are not jobs around for them to do. In a sense, they are forced into self-employment. Although that takes them off the claimant count, they cannot necessarily predict what they will do from one week to the next.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend eloquently explains how complicated things are even for men who do not have children. If we add to the basic benefits system and the tax credits system the need for parents to work out their additional eligibility for free childcare, they will have to do complicated sums to work out whether they will be better off on tax-free childcare or universal credit. Every time their income changes, every time their hours change and every time their child hits another birthday, they will have to amend their application further. Is it any wonder that parents are worried about getting into trouble through no fault of their own?
Pat Glass
I welcome that intervention. We do not want people to get into the situation that we see frequently in our constituency surgeries, where parents turn up with huge bills for tax credits that they need to pay back. They did not intend to get into that situation, and it is not about fraud; it is about things being unclear.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady touches on an important issue, which is worth clarifying. The power to create an offence in the Bill relates only to information—that is, sensitive information about children or about parents’ income—being passed on without authorisation. The measure is designed to protect parents and their data, not to punish them. The financial penalties scheme is for false declaration or fraud, which is more proportionate.
Pat Glass
That is really helpful. Still, financial penalties will be imposed, and we see that happening all the time to parents who are on tax credits. It would be best to avoid that situation if we can by being as clear as possible. Given that many families have different and varied patterns of work, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain to us exactly what the eligibility criteria will be, and how far he is prepared to go on that question. For those on zero-hours contracts, those who do seasonal work and the self-employed, whose work and income are entirely variable and dependent on others, eligibility needs to be calculated over a period of time.
For many people, the self-employed included—we welcome the desire expressed by the Government to include them in eligibility for the scheme—it will not be possible for them or for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to confirm their income until 18 months after the end of a financial year. The Minister will get absolutely sick of me giving him the benefit of my experience, but when I worked in education and we had student grants— remember them?—self-employed parents were allowed to estimate their income, and their children’s grants were calculated on the basis of those estimates, with a full reconciliation 18 months later when HMRC issued confirmation of the parents’ income. I am sure that the same is true of student loans. Will similar estimations of income and hours of work be allowed in this case? Will they be calculated over a certain period? If so, what will that be?
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I do not know whether the hon. Lady knows this, but there are at least three members of the Committee who did not enjoy student grants—
Chloe Smith
There are four, but that is not the point of my intervention. The point of my intervention is to ask the hon. Member for North West Durham, in the spirit of her probing amendments—a healthy spirit—to explain to us a little more how she would have liked to tidy up the system with the introduction of the 25 hours of free childcare that her party was hoping to bring in had it won the election. Will she explain how things ought to be done?
Pat Glass
My understanding is that the 25 hours was universal, and when something is universal we do not need such untidiness. Now, however, we are talking about the Government’s 30 hours. For the benefit of us all, parents in particular, I simply want clarification of the issues. Will those income and hours be estimated over a period of time? What is that period? Will HMRC be confirming things?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady is being incredibly generous in giving way again, and I will address her points in my response. I hate to be the killjoy who reminds her, but the manifesto on which she stood for election promised 25 hours of free childcare for the working parents of three and four-year-olds. It was not a universal offer.
Pat Glass
It was universal for parents who are working. Getting back to the probing amendment, will an average of 16 hours a week over 52 weeks be possible for those on zero-hours contracts, in seasonal work and so on? What will happen if something goes wrong? What will happen if parents genuinely believe that they will work an average of 16 hours a week over 52 weeks, based on the average of the past three years, say, but something goes horribly wrong and they fail to reach the average hours or the average income?
Things do go wrong for families. Poor weather might lead to a rotten summer—it would never happen, because that is completely unknown in the UK, isn’t it? If a business depends on a good summer, people could find themselves falling foul of the income threshold. Flooding over Christmas, or even in November, might wipe out earnings in the peak season—again, not unknown in the UK. Recession might dry up people’s work and income—again, not unknown in the UK—or even an international banking crisis could force families into unemployment and poverty. It might be something else that is completely out of the control of the parents. What will happen then?
If the parents genuinely estimate their position based on the previous three years, backed up by all that historical stuff, and then something goes wrong, who will make decisions about that? What is likely to happen to parents? Will they have to pay back the cost? I was going to ask if they faced two years in prison, but we have already heard that they will not.
The Minister needs to make regulations and it would be helpful to know what is in his mind when he is thinking about them. We all welcome the Bill—so warmly that we want to get it right for parents. If the Minister can be absolutely clear about the issue of eligibility, we will be grateful.
Jess Phillips
I will speak specifically about eligibility and probe a little more how it will work. The two areas that I wish to speak about are women who live in domestic violence refuges and those who have their children in a maintained sector service much like the one my children attended.
If my children enjoyed the full week in childcare for free—it seems like manna from heaven to me—and I lost my job, their places would be removed. I would only be able to send them to the maintained sector service for 15 hours of the week, if I understand how the regulations will work. A place for only half the week would then become available to a child in that maintained setting, and another person using that childcare would need to lose their job to make that up to a whole place, so I would have to take someone down with me whose children also went to school with mine, which seems a bit dramatic. If free entitlement increases from 15 to 30 hours, the number of places in that setting is reduced. If my circumstances changed, there would be half a place free—half a place is as useful as a chocolate teapot. I am not sure how Ministers will get around that particular instance if people’s circumstances change. Will people whose employment is at risk—those who might not keep their job—only be able to get childcare in the private sector, not the maintained sector? Would I, under this system, have to put my child with one child carer for the first half of the week and a different one for the second half? I just cannot see how this will work in the world that I live in.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady please clarify something for me? Is she actually saying that if somebody like her lost their job, they should still be eligible for this benefit? It was my understanding that this policy is about helping people into work and helping those who are in work.
Jess Phillips
I am saying exactly that. Who knows how long someone might be out of employment? Their child would lose their place for the second half of the week. People need time to go and find a job. When me and my children were in that situation, I was working three voluntary jobs to gain experience so that after my second son was born, I was able to get a full-time job. So yes, I am saying that it is probably not the best thing to say to somebody who has just lost their job, “Your child’s situation will now have to completely change. You won’t be able to go and seek a job, as you’ll now be tied to childcare.”
Michelle Donelan
It is my understanding that the Bill gives a grace period to accommodate that.
Jess Phillips
And how long is that grace period? I put that question to the Minister.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Lady for inviting me to intervene. The system will be checked by HMRC, which will check earnings on a forward-looking quarterly basis. Based on that, parents will be eligible for childcare. That will be done automatically; parents do not need to apply. If parents disagree with the decision that is made, there will be an appeals process about which I will speak in more detail in my speech. We have to remember the fundamental principle mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham—this is about work. Someone needs to earn only £115.20 a week––
The Chair
Order. Interventions must be short. The Minister will have an opportunity to wind up the debate in his speech later. Other Members have opportunities to intervene and make speeches because we are not limited to time. I would be grateful if Members would bear that in mind.
Jess Phillips
I am grateful for that clarification. From that, I read that there will be a three-month grace period, if it is quarterly. I totally understand that and it is great if someone can find a job within three months. Obviously, if they do not find a job in that time—for example, if they find one within four months—they would then have to find another place for their child separate from the 15 hours that the child would already be spending with a different child carer.
Government Members might think that I am splitting hairs, but I am speaking from real-life experience of what would have happened to me had this been in place when I was going through the process. I am not that special—I know that is shocking to hear—and this will be happening to lots of parents exactly like me. There is an issue with the maintained sector—how nursery places are allocated for the 30 hours compared with the 15 hours—that must be taken into account by any regulation. That is the first thing I would probe.
The second thing that concerns me, having worked for much of my career in a domestic violence refuge, is the effect of women leaving their jobs to live in refuge. I am sad to say that the way that our benefits system is structured and has been for many years—this is no fault of this particular Government on this occasion—means that women who live in refuge cannot really work. They cannot afford to be a working woman in refuge. It is near impossible. The vast majority of women who live in domestic violence refuges are therefore living on housing benefit, which cannot be claimed if they are in work, because the rates for refuge provision are far higher than the weekly rates for a normal social housing scheme. That said, 90% of women in refuge do not work and those who worked before they entered refuge by and large have to give up their job to live in the refuge.
Christian Matheson
I may be showing my inexperience, in which case I apologise to the Minister and hon. Members for misunderstanding the process, but when my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham moved the amendment, I listened with some dismay, because it seems that while at the general election there was a clear pledge of 30 hours’ free childcare, there is now a lack of clarity about who is eligible for the programme. Apparently we see the Government backtracking on matters: they have tried to squeeze the criteria into the promise they made at that time.
I am inexperienced in these matters, so perhaps it is normal for a party to make an announcement at a general election that is not properly costed and then it has to come up with proposals on how the criteria will fit the policy in the legislative process. If I am doing the Minister a disservice, I will gladly apologise, but I ask the Conservatives to consider the pitfalls of making promises without a fully costed programme and then having to cost them afterwards.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman is talking about our promises. The Labour party said:
“Labour has a better plan for working families.”
Its offer was to working families; it was not universal. It offered an extension not to 30 hours, but to 25 hours, and in no place did it mention special provisions for vulnerable people.
Christian Matheson
That is all well and good, but the fact is we were clear about our policies and where the money would come from. Unfortunately, our amendments reveal a lack of detail in the Government’s proposals and I hope the Minister will answer that. I am slightly dismayed that we need these probing amendments in the first place to try to get clarity when no such clarity was lacking before the general election.
My hon friends the Members for North West Durham and for Birmingham, Yardley asked questions about voluntary workers. I recall the Prime Minister talking about his vision for a big society in which voluntary work plays such an important part in the development of communities. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind, assuming that the Prime Minister still holds that vision—perhaps the big society has fallen by the wayside.
Finally, the Minister explained that HMRC will have a role in assessing eligibility in terms of the grace period. My one concern is that contacting HMRC is not a straightforward procedure, as anyone who has tried to do so over the past couple of years will know. The organisation is under strain on tax returns, for example, and asking it to take on additional duties will put extra strain on it. Will the Government provide extra resources to HMRC to allow it to maintain the quality of its service, as I am sure officers of HMRC wish to do? I fear that the proposals will place a greater burden on HMRC, which will make contacting it to talk about the matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley raised even more difficult. Perhaps the Minister will address those points.
Mr Gyimah
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. A number of points that have been raised this afternoon have led me to think that Opposition Members want to turn an employment offer into a universal offer of 30 hours of childcare. To be clear, every three or four-year-old will get 15 hours of childcare. The entitlement to the second 15 hours is based on the parent’s employment. I will speak to amendments 8, 9 and 12, to clarify whether specific groups of parents from varying circumstances will be able to access the 30 hours—the extended entitlement—as per those probing amendments.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for North West Durham and for Birmingham, Yardley for the amendments, and I want to make it clear that the Government recognise that for many families, childcare is not an issue; it is the issue. That is why supporting working families with their childcare costs is at the heart of our policy. Amendment 8 concerns parents who work on a voluntary basis and full-time students. It would allow parents who are not in remunerated work, but who are contributing to society through voluntary work, to access the extended entitlement. It would also allow parents who are in full-time education and taking steps to retrain and prepare themselves for the labour market to access the extended entitlement.
Pat Glass
I want to make it clear that when we talk about full-time students in training, we are talking about students who are on a training course that will lead into an occupation. We are talking not about full-time study across the piece, but about people who are training to be nurses, doctors or teachers, or doing something that will lead directly into employment.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification, and I will come back to that in detail. As I have said, all three and four-year-olds, and 40% of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds, are already entitled to 15 hours of free childcare a week. That provides substantial opportunity for their parents to take up voluntary work where they wish to do so, or indeed to study. The additional 15 hours of free childcare is intended to help parents who wish to take up paid employment to support their families.
The additional 15 hours will be available to families where each parent, or the sole parent in a lone parent family, earns an average weekly income equivalent to at least16 hours at the national minimum wage or the living wage, and less than £100,000 a year. Although the Government recognise the importance of volunteering, the purpose of the extended entitlement is to help working parents with the cost of childcare so that they can take up paid work if they want to, or work additional hours. The approach we are taking is consistent with other Government childcare schemes, including tax-free childcare and the childcare element of universal credit.
Mr Gyimah
That is a good question, and I am happy to provide clarification. The national living wage applies to people over the age of 25, so, in their case, the eligibility criterion would be set at that rate, which is £115.20 a week. Those who are under 25 will be on the national minimum wage, in which case the earnings criterion will be £107 a week. Even if someone is doing voluntary work, if they can combine their voluntary work with earning £107 or £115.20 a week, they will get the additional 15 hours of childcare.
Alex Cunningham
I hope that the Minister enjoyed his long career as an investment banker and subsequently running his own business that specialised in recruitment. He will know that experience is absolutely critical to people getting a job. Surely, if people are to achieve the work experience they need to get on to an interview list, we should value all their work. Some of these jobs, like interns here at the House of Commons, are unpaid full-time roles. Surely we should value that, let them have childcare and then move on into a career.
Alex Cunningham
I will place on the record that I have never taken an intern because I cannot pay one. If I were able to pay one, I would, and I think the same should apply to every MP within the House.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about volunteering. We recognise the importance of volunteering, but as I said, the purpose of the extended entitlement is to help working parents with the cost of childcare. The approach we are taking here is consistent with other Government policy. Of course, where a parent or parents are undertaking voluntary work alongside paid employment that meets the minimum income criteria they will be eligible, as I have said, for 30 hours of free childcare. However we are clear that parents solely undertaking voluntary work should not be able to access the extended entitlement.
The issue of parents in full-time education has also been raised. Again, they get the first 15 hours and if they are in the 40% most disadvantaged households, they will get 15 hours of free childcare for their two-year-olds. In addition, the Government already provide support to parents in recognised education courses through discretionary learner support and the loans bursary fund. Students in higher education may be eligible for support through the childcare grant, which offers parents support of up to 85% of their childcare costs up to a maximum of £155.24 a week for one child and £266.15 for two children. Where parents choose to undertake part-time work alongside their studies, and on average earn the equivalent of 16 hours at the national minimum wage or living wage per week, they will also be able to benefit from 30 hours of free childcare. However, we are clear that parents solely undertaking full-time study should not be able to access the extended entitlement.
Jess Phillips
I wonder whether those training to be nurses, who are working now for free in our NHS, will be entitled to the 30 hours of free childcare if they are in full-time nursing training.
Mr Gyimah
There is the Care to Learn Scheme, which can apply in some cases, and other programmes, such as the childcare element of tax credits, could apply to them, but specifically, the additional 15 hours here is linked to employment and income, unless you are earning no income at all, when of course, you will not be eligible to get this.
Ruth Cadbury
Is the Minister saying that parents can only use this offer if they are already working? What concerns me is that this offer will not benefit those parents who want to get into better paid work because they are studying full-time. When one is studying full-time it is quite difficult to also work while also having three and four-year-olds.
Mr Gyimah
Many of those parents will be eligible, assuming they are at the lower end of the income scale, for the childcare element of tax credits and universal credit when that is fully rolled out. There will be support through that to help them with their situation, in terms of getting back to work. There are also other programmes, such as the Care to Learn Scheme which can help them. As far as the additional 15 hours is concerned, yes, it is linked to an actual employment status. Under the voucher scheme that was introduced by the previous Government, people who were self-employed or earning the minimum wage did not qualify for that scheme. Under the scheme we are introducing here, all these people qualify for their additional 15 hours.
As I have said, supporting working families is at the heart of this policy and we have been clear throughout that people on zero-hours contracts and the self-employed will get this. The contractual position will not determine whether their children—and it is the children rather than the parents—are eligible. The legislation allows for children of parents on zero-hours contracts to be eligible in the same way as anyone else. Eligibility will be based on what parents reasonably expect to earn on average across the coming quarter, enabling parents with more irregular working patterns to benefit.
Ruth Cadbury
Will the Minister clarify over what period those calculations are done? Does he literally mean that the calculation will be done over a three-week period, or will it be averaged out over several months, particularly given what my hon. Friends said earlier about seasonal and variable working hours?
Mr Gyimah
As I said in response to an earlier question, the calculation will be done on a quarterly basis, but over time, the system will know what someone’s average earnings are. The hon. Lady also asked in an earlier question how simple it will be for parents. Parents will not have to update their details constantly; it will be done quarterly by the system. Parents will not have to work out complicated sums to access the extended entitlement, as they must do in the tax credits system. The joint application system that HMRC develops will provide a single, simple point of access for parents. The system will give parents an instant decision on their eligibility in most cases, so that will apply in the vast majority of cases.
Again, to take a practical example, a person on a zero-hours contract who, despite periods without work, reasonably expects to meet the minimum income level will be eligible. HMRC will take a proportionate approach to compliance, using details of past income and other information provided by parents to assess eligibility. We know that parents whose situations fluctuate need their childcare arrangements to support them in work. We will therefore work with local authorities and childcare providers through the early implementation phase to develop provision that can support parents with irregular working patterns.
There are already good examples from across the country of providers offering parents flexible care. For example, in Brent, they have set up an emergency and overnight register to match up parents with childminders whom they can access at short notice 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Swindon intends to offer weekend early-education sessions from January 2016, initially through an academy and a private provider, as well as through a number of registered childminders. Through early implementers, we will work on the right type of provision as well as ensure that the eligibility system works consistently with people whose earnings fluctuate.
We want to see that kind of innovation in other parts of the country, and that is what the early implementation programme will support. We also recognise that self-employed parents’ income is often not smooth or predictable. The free entitlement will be available to self-employed parents, and we intend to have special rules for them similar to those available in tax-free childcare. Self-employed parents who work throughout the year but get income only at certain times in the year will be able to average that income across the whole tax year rather than just quarterly. Also, because new businesses often struggle to get going, self-employed parents will not need to take the minimum income limit into account at all in their first year.
Amendment 12 relates to the parents of an eligible disabled child. Again, we recognise that all families are different and that some may face particular issues, for example where parents have caring responsibilities. That is why we have made it clear throughout the passage of the Bill that when one parent is employed and one parent has substantial caring responsibilities, based on specific benefits received for caring, such households will be able to access the extended entitlement.
I am pleased to confirm that it is our intention that that will include households where one parent is working and one parent is being paid carer’s allowance or the carer element of universal credit. That includes parents caring for their own three or four-year-old child where the child is in receipt of disability living allowance or is certified blind. If a single parent with a disabled child meets both the conditions regarding paid work and the minimum income threshold, they will of course be able to access the extended entitlement. If they do not work they will not be eligible for the entitlement, but they might be able to receive carer’s allowance or universal credit.
The appeals process has been touched on. If parents are not happy with HMRC’s decisions about their eligibility, they will be able to seek a mandatory review by HMRC, and if they are still not satisfied they will be able to appeal to the first-tier tribunal. They can also appeal against decisions about financial penalties—both the fact of the penalty and its amount.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the Minister for those detailed responses to our concerns, and for being keen for the system to be simple and straightforward as possible for parents when their eligibility for the various schemes is being assessed. Has he had conversations with HMRC and the Treasury, and is he confident that the necessary resources and the technical support will exist in HMRC to provide a seamless, smooth and well informed process for parents who will be navigating what appears to be a complicated system?
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Lady for her interest. Getting the technology platform right is absolutely crucial, and the cross-Government taskforce on childcare, which I co-chair, has considered it in detail. In addition, officials in the Department for Education are working closely with HMRC on the joint system, the development of which secured funding at the spending review, and we will provide the system to HMRC in due course. I thank the hon. Lady for her legitimate concern.
Pat Glass
I apologise if I missed this information. The Minister said that parents will be able to appeal to the first-tier tribunal. Will that be the employment tribunal, and will there be costs involved for parents, in the same way as there are for those appealing to that tribunal regarding unfair dismissal, for example?
Mr Gyimah
If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will await inspiration from the usual channels. In the meantime, I will plough on with my speech.
In relation to the extended entitlement, we are clear that the powers we have taken are sufficient to enable us to cater for non-standard working patterns and families’ different circumstances. I can also reassure hon. Members that if a parent’s circumstances change, their child will remain eligible for the extended free entitlement for a short period—there will be no instantaneous change. We hope that within that period the parent will be able to regain employment and continue to declare that they expect to meet the eligibility criteria. If that is not the case, and the parent is clear that they no longer expect to be in paid employment after the grace period, they become ineligible.
Ruth Cadbury
The Minister begs the question: what is the definition of “short period”?
Mr Gyimah
The short period is in line with the grace period, which is three months.
As hon. Members can see, we fully support the intention behind the amendments. However, we believe that putting too much detail in the Bill about the specific circumstances in which children could qualify risks inadvertently excluding some of those we want to include. Nevertheless, Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations before they are finalised.
As part of the development of the joint childcare application system, we will publish information for parents and their partners to make clear the eligibility rules for different groups of parents, so that they can be clear about whether they can access the extended entitlement. Online and telephone advice will also be available to assist parents. In addition, we will publish statutory guidance for local authorities next year, so that they can advise parents about their eligibility for the extended entitlement and discharge their responsibilities for delivering childcare places in keeping with the scheme’s rules.
In response to the question about the first-tier tribunal, the inspiration that I have received says that it will be specifically a social security tribunal and not an employment tribunal.
Mr Gyimah
I will get inspiration on that before the end of my speech.
I hope that hon. Members are reassured that the parents who are the subject of these amendments will be supported under the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Member for North West Durham feels reassured enough not to press the amendments.
I am waiting for inspiration and for someone to intervene on me.
Pat Glass
I am immensely grateful to the Minister for that. The word on the street was that the Government wanted to better Labour’s offer of 25 hours of free childcare but never really expected to have to deliver it—they thought they would be able to deal it away in some kind of coalition. Given that, I think the Minister has done incredibly well in getting to the detail; credit where it is due.
The Minister has been able to clarify for me, in a way that I did not understand before, the issue of eligibility and the 16-hour work threshold, the issue of those under and over 25, and the issue of the national living wage and the minimum wage. That is really helpful.
I am also immensely grateful to the Minister for clarifying that parents will not end up in prison. I had an awful feeling that parents could end up with two years in prison as a result of getting the system wrong. That is clearly not the case. I also now understand the eligibility criteria on the grounds of income.
I seek clarification on one point, and I am happy for the Minister to intervene on me. I was interested in what he had to say about people who are self-employed, which we welcome, but there is a danger. I hate to throw a spanner in the works, but if someone is eligible automatically in the year in which they set up a business, are the Government mindful of people who would want to abuse the system by folding their business at the end of the year and starting a new one?
I have concerns about only a couple of things now, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley raised one of them. In the spending review, the Chancellor changed the system of training for nurses, so that they no longer come under bursaries and now have to receive grants. That will automatically wipe out a huge number of nurses across the country from eligibility for childcare, and I ask the Minister to have another look at that issue. Those people are not on great wages, they are working hard, and they will contribute to our society in the future in a way that many other students on grants perhaps will not. It is unfortunate, to say the least, if they are simply taken out of the eligibility criteria.
Also, I understand the reasons behind the grace period, but I worry a little bit about children falling out of childcare places every 13 weeks. If a parent regularly finds a job after four months, once their children have built relationships—for some families, that is the case—that could have a worrying impact on the children’s development. I do not know what the answer is—I am not pretending that I do—but it is something for the Government to consider.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady raises an important point about how the grace period works in practice, the eligibility checking and the actual childcare places on the ground. As I said, one of the principal things that we will be able to test during the early implementation phase is exactly when a local authority is informed, when the provider is informed, how long a place is kept open for and so on. We will have to iron out those details, which is why they belong in regulations rather than in the Bill.
Pat Glass
Finally, will the Minister think about what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley said about women’s refuges? Domestic violence underpins so many problems across the country. Many years ago I was a director in an authority. We had an emergency crisis team for children in primary education, and we would meet every single week with groups of headteachers to consider children who were in crisis and allocate specialists and clinical psychologists to try to help those children. In 100% of cases that I saw—at the time, I remember being really shocked—there was domestic violence. It is endemic, and we do not address it in the way that we should. For those children and their parents, there may be—
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady again makes a very good point, and I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley for raising the issue. I am willing to offer to look into what exactly someone in such a situation will get, because there is a package of childcare measures, and they might be entitled to other measures. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady and meet her to look at what they could get and how it could be dealt with.
Mr Gyimah
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, leave out from “about” to the end of line 26 and insert “—
(i) the form of a declaration and the manner in which it is to be made;
(ii) the conditions to be met by the person making a declaration;
(iii) the period for which a declaration has effect.”
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to set conditions to be met by a person making a declaration as to a child’s eligibility for the extended entitlement
Mr Gyimah
These amendments are on the role of HMRC in relation to the extended entitlement, and they include a consequential amendment that would enable the provision to come into force immediately on Royal Assent. They are technical in nature.
As the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), set out on Second Reading, parents will be able to apply for the extended entitlement as part of a simple joint online system being developed by HMRC in partnership with National Savings and Investments for tax-free childcare. That means that parents will have to provide information on their personal circumstances only once, even where they wish to apply for both schemes, which will create a simple and smooth customer journey that will save parents and providers valuable time.
Ruth Cadbury
I value the Minister’s comments, but am I right that some parents will go down the universal credit route? Can we be assured that there will be a link-up between HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions to help parents assess their eligibility, depending on which route they take?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady raises a good point. Obviously, universal credit is different benefits rolled into one. The one that we are concerned with here is the childcare element. There is a plan further down the line to make sure that is incorporated, which will make it easy for parents to move across the different childcare products as their circumstances change.
Mr Gyimah
That is very much part of the thinking.
Amendment 2 will enable regulations to be made under the clause setting out the conditions to be met by a person making a declaration as to a child’s eligibility for the extend entitlement. For example, to be consistent with tax-free childcare, the person making the declaration will need to be the person responsible for the child. It is crucial that we are able to provide clarity for parents about the declaration they will have to make, and that we can ensure that HMRC will be provided with the information it needs to make decisions about whether a child is eligible for the extended entitlement.
The conditions that the person making the declaration will need to meet will be set out alongside the form and manner of the declaration. Regulations will say more about those matters in due course and will be subject to the highest degree of parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 3 will make it clear in the Bill that HMRC will be verifying, and making a determination about, a child’s eligibility for additional free childcare. The amendment will ensure that HMRC can work in a timely fashion to extend its online system, so that it can also check eligibility for the 30 hours of free childcare. That will enable HMRC to determine whether a child is eligible for the extended entitlement.
Amendment 6 deals with commencement, which is when the various provisions of the Bill will come into force. It is consequential on the new provision that gives HMRC the power to make a determination as to a child’s eligibility. We intend that provision to come into force on Royal Assent, so that HMRC can begin to build the technical aspects of the joint eligibility checking system.
Ensuring that the operational aspects of the extended entitlement are in place in good time will enable us to test that the eligibility checking system runs smoothly for parents.
Pat Glass
These are technical amendments, and we do not have a problem with them. The only thing we ask is that the Minister confirms that HMRC has the capacity and resources to deliver. Members from all parts of the House deal regularly with HMRC, which is one of the most difficult departments. I remember when a nurse who had just retired came to see me. She had been on PAYE throughout her career, and she suddenly got a bill for £42,000 back tax. After we explored the matter, it turned out that she did not owe anything. I always count such results as major successes, but such cases are happening in all our constituencies all the time. People tell me that they spend hours and hours trying to get through to HMRC, just to ask simple questions about their tax. We need to know that HMRC has the capacity and resources to deliver on this measure.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady asks a legitimate question. Although HMRC will be checking eligibility, the measure is not specifically to do with the tax system. Funding has been provided to offer parents telephone support where needed, and there is funding available for the IT system. That funding specifically relates to checking eligibility for the 30 hours of childcare, rather than being part of HMRC’s wider tax-related activities.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendment made: 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
‘(4A) For the purposes of assisting the Secretary of State in the discharge of the duty imposed by subsection (1), the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may carry out functions in connection with the making of determinations as to whether a child is a qualifying child of working parents.’—(Mr Gyimah.)
This amendment confers on HMRC the power to make a determination as to a child’s eligibility for the extended entitlement and carry out associated functions.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gyimah
The clause will place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that childcare is available free of charge for qualifying children of working parents for a period equivalent to 30 hours for 38 weeks in any year. The Government recognise that childcare is an issue for many families. The new extended entitlement, with an additional 15 hours, is intended to support working parents with the cost of childcare, enabling them to work additional hours if they wish to do so. That will be available to families where both parents are working or the sole parent is working in a lone-parent family. Self-employed parents will also be eligible, as we heard earlier, as would parents in receipt of tax credits, universal credit, tax and childcare vouchers through their employer or tax-free childcare.
The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to set out in regulations the description of a qualifying child. We intend that a child will qualify from the school term following their third birthday, in the same way as with the existing 15-hour early education entitlement. The clause will also enable the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the criteria that must be met by parents. The regulations would set out what is or is not to be regarded as paid work and how the extended entitlement would support temporary absences from the workplace. It is important that parents on maternity, paternity or adoption leave can maintain their existing childcare arrangements while they take time away from the workplace to adjust to the new arrival.
As the Secretary of State set out on Second Reading, each parent must on average be earning a weekly minimum equivalent to 16 hours at the national minimum wage or national living wage. From April 2016, the national living wage will come into force for workers aged 25 and over, alongside the national minimum wage for workers under 25. A working parent who is 25 will therefore need to earn a weekly minimum equivalent of £115.20 in order to be eligible, whereas a working parent who is 21 will need to earn a weekly minimum equivalent of around £107 at this year’s minimum wage rates. Parents on zero-hours contracts and the self-employed will be eligible in the same way as anyone else, provided they meet the earnings criteria across the coming quarter on average.
Parents with fluctuating incomes will be able to access the extended entitlement if they reasonably expect to earn the minimum on average. That income requirement will ensure we prioritise the extra 15 hours of childcare for working families that need the most help with their childcare costs. Together with the existing universal entitlement, those parents will be entitled to double the childcare support they would normally receive.
The Secretary of State outlined on Second Reading that there will be a £100,000 income limit on the extended entitlement per year for each parent. That means any family in which either parent earns more than £100,000 or any sole parent who earns more than £100,000 will not be able to claim the extended entitlement. I can confirm that the increase in the minimum income level to 16 hours per week and the annual income cap of £100,000 will also apply to tax-free childcare. I am sure Committee members will agree that it is right to align eligibility conditions for the two schemes and focus support where it is needed most. Parents will be able to apply for both schemes at the same time, using a simple online system, as I have outlined.
The duty that the clause will place on the Secretary of State demonstrates the Government’s commitment to supporting working families. It will enable the Government to deliver on their manifesto commitment and help to ensure that parents who wish to work or to work more hours are supported to do so through free childcare.
Pat Glass
We have had a detailed discussion, but there are a number of assurances I would like the Minister to give, if he can. He said that the House will have the opportunity to debate and scrutinise the regulations at the highest level, but I am aware that he is looking to remove the House of Lords amendment further on in the Bill that states all regulations should be subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure. Can he confirm there will be an opportunity for the House to debate the regulations? There will be an awful lot in the regulations. It is right that they are made, but it is also right that the House gets an opportunity to debate them when the time comes and that they are not simply laid before Parliament and slipped out under the cover of darkness.
The Minister said that HMRC will have the resources and capacity to deliver the measure. He talked about the new IT system, which I hope is not linked in any way to the IT system used for universal credit; we would be very worried if that were the case.
It is a shame that the eligibility criteria have increased. The initial offer was 30 hours of free childcare to parents working more than eight hours a week. That has increased to 16 hours, with an income threshold, taking some of our poorest and most disadvantaged working parents out of the system. I understand that it is squeezed at the top, but it is a shame those parents have been taken out of the system in order for the Government to balance the books.
I am grateful that the Minister will look at the issue of children whose parents are in women’s refuges. I hope he will look again at the issue of nurses in training who will simply be taken out of the system wholesale, but I am grateful for his clarification.
Mr Gyimah
I shall respond very briefly to the hon. Lady’s points. First, the Government will be proposing an affirmative debate on all the regulations on their first use. I am sure we will discuss that in due course.
Secondly, a bespoke IT system is being built. I have personally interrogated it. It is fantastic that, given the plethora of childcare offers out there, we are beginning to bring together the eligibility and application systems to make it easy for parents.
Thirdly, on the point about balancing the books, we have refined our eligibility criteria as we have gone through the process. Given that parents get 15 hours free, it is simply illogical to say that they have to work only an extra hour to get another 15 hours free. It is a question of not only balancing the books but refining the policy.
Fourthly, I take on board the hon. Lady’s point about nurses and grants. As with women in refuge centres, I will look at that issue and write to her to set out what else they could qualify for, given the number of childcare offers that are available.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Discharging the section 2(1) duty
Pat Glass
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 3, page 3, line 14, at end insert—
“(ba) make provision about determining and auditing the appropriate qualifications to be held by staff providing childcare for the purposes of this Act, including in relation to staff providing childcare for qualifying children with disabilities.”
This amendment would require Government to set out the qualifications that staff would be required to have or acquire when providing childcare for disabled children for the purposes of this Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Workforce qualifications—
‘(1) For the purposes of securing childcare under section 2, the Secretary of State must, within six months of section 2 coming into force, lay a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out her proposals for developing the early years workforce.
(2) The report mentioned in subsection (2)(1) must include, in particular,—
(a) a target for the proportion of children who receive early education and/or childcare directly led by an early years graduate;
(b) a target for the proportion of staff in the early years workforce who have a relevant level 3 qualification; and
(c) the timescale within which the Government will seek to meet these targets.”
Pat Glass
This morning I spoke briefly about the shortage of qualified staff in the workforce—I think I was ruled out of order at least three times, but now is my time—and how that is a risk to the Government’s policy of expansion of free childcare. The House of Lords Affordable Childcare Committee demonstrated that the existing scheme of 15 free hours is being run at a loss in most private, voluntary and independent settings. It is cross-subsidised by the incredibly complicated system that currently exists.
I have previously discussed the future costs of childcare that were not considered in the Government’s childcare review, which begins by telling us that
“the market is healthy, and has grown in recent years.”
It goes on to tell us that
“there is currently sufficient supply available to the majority of parents”,
yet local authorities freely acknowledge that they have insufficient supply in their areas and the House of Commons Library tells us that we have 44,000 fewer childcare places today than we had in 2009.
Putting our disagreements over the funding gaps to one side for the moment, perhaps the biggest threats to expansion in the childcare sector are the issues around workforce capacity. Childcare providers report that they are already finding it incredibly difficult to recruit well-qualified and experienced staff to deliver the existing 15 hours. Parents of disabled children tell us that the cost of and access to childcare for their children is a big problem. Most providers do not have the trained staff that they need to ensure the future development and safety of children.
Part of the difficulty that providers have in recruiting suitably qualified staff—let alone those with the qualifications and skills to support disabled children’s learning—is competition with the maintained sector, which is able to offer higher rates of pay and term-time-only contracts. Given the fact that 61% of nurseries and childcare providers are in the private and voluntary sector, there is a serious danger of the majority of that provision becoming second-class, with children having less access to good-quality and experienced staff and a further gulf opening up between the children of those parents who can access 30 hours of quality childcare in the maintained sector and the rest.
This morning, I spoke briefly about the chief inspector’s report and the experience I have had and outcomes I have seen as a member of the Education Committee. There are clear links between the quality of the provision—the quality of the staff and their qualifications—and the outcomes from children. We accept that in the maintained sector, because there is a lot of access to qualified teachers, graduates and so on, and because almost all the staff will be at least level 3 qualified, it is a natural correlation that it will have better quality provision if things remain as they are and if something is not done about the lack of qualified staff in the PVI sector.
The Minister has acknowledged that the pattern of use of childcare provision is not flat across the week, while most provision runs at between 75% and 90% capacity. As we have heard, there is much less take-up on Mondays and Friday than on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. I am advised that most settings would struggle to increase their offer from 15 to 30 hours for children who are not disabled because they do not have the space, because they cannot recruit the qualified level 3 staff they need and because they do not have the provision to offer meals in the middle of the day. Many children coming for 15 hours go home at lunchtime, when another group of children come for their 15 hours. If those children stay for 30 hours a week, there will have to be provision for offering meals in the middle of the day, and many of these settings tell me that they cannot do that.
The voluntary sector is a major sector, and it is operating out of church halls. If provision is to be extended to 30 hours, we would have to take account of those who would be displaced. It is not just about meals in the middle of the day; it is about old people’s luncheon clubs, the Mothers Union and keep-fit classes that will be displaced if 30 hours of childcare is offered. The providers tell me that they cannot offer 30 hours because they can not offer meals in the middle of the day, but they also do not want to put out all the other users of the premises.
Outside of funding, the biggest concern is the lack of capacity in the workforce. I realise that this is one part of the Department for Education operating separately from another, which happened an awful lot even in my day, but the Government have required that an outcome of any level 3 training is that staff will have a GCSE in both English and maths at grade C or above. Although we all agree that it is a good thing for staff to be qualified, by clinging to their insistence on GCSE grade C for students who have already failed that qualification after two years of study at school, the Government are going against the recommendations of both the sector and the Education Committee. The Education Committee considered the matter carefully in relation to apprenticeships in general and found that a qualification of the same difficulty and quality, such as functional skills in numeracy and literacy, was a much better and more practical way of ensuring that people completing such qualifications are both literate and numerate without forcing apprentices down a route that they have already failed.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in this important debate. I am glad that we are making progress. Having started the day by saying that the Government were dumbing down quality, she is now criticising us for setting the quality bar too high on GCSE literacy and numeracy.
Pat Glass
The Minister is being cynical. Does he really think that GCSE grade C in English and maths is setting the bar too high? It is not that. It is about being practical. I will explain the implications of the Government’s decision. These students are not 16 or 14, or whatever; they are apprentices working in the childcare sector, or hoping to work in the childcare sector. They have already failed, and all the evidence I saw on the Education Committee showed that functional skills in numeracy and literacy are not easier than GCSE; they are just different and more practical for the world of work.
By refusing to listen, the Government are adding to the crisis in the workforce. There has been an 80% reduction in recruitment for level 3 childcare courses and a 56% shortfall in new applicants since the new GCSE requirement was imposed—in a sector that is desperate for qualified staff. If the GCSE requirement is stopping students going into this sector, and if it is stopping them training when we already have a shortfall of qualified staff for 15 hours, how will the Government square the circle for 30 hours?
Mr Gyimah
I hope the hon. Lady is aware that one of the things I have done that was welcomed by the sector was to make the GCSE English and maths requirement one on exit, rather than on entry. The requirement is not stopping anyone getting on to a childcare course; they just need to satisfy the requirement by the time they finish the course. I believe that was welcomed by the sector.
Pat Glass
I understand that and welcome it, but equally, we cannot get away from the facts. Whether it is at the beginning or the end of the course, it is clearly putting off students. If there has been a 56% fall in new applicants since the introduction of the GCSE requirement to replace functional skills and there was no argument, as I understand, that students were coming out who were not literate or numerate, the Government must recognise that the requirement may well be part of the problem rather than of the solution.
The situation has not been helped by the Government’s lack of a workforce strategy, although I think that we may be inching towards one; I will wait to see what the Minister says. It was not helpful that the previous Minister tried to change ratios, and then changed her mind and forged ahead with the graduate early-years qualification, which did not have qualified teacher status. Those chop-and-change policies brought her into conflict with the sector and others, including the Education Committee. We have been proved right on that. I understand that to date, the course for early-years graduates, which offers 2,000 places, has recruited about 800, and that the numbers recruited have fallen year on year since it was implemented. I know that such things are not within the Minister’s gift, but in his discussions with the Secretary of State, he needs to point out that they are not helping in a sector that is already struggling to get qualified staff.
The amendment would require the Government to set out what qualifications staff are expected to have or require when providing childcare for disabled children for the purposes of the Bill. I remind the Committee of what I have already said: more than one third of parents, 38%, who were unable to access their entitlement of 15 hours of free childcare said that it was because they did not think that the childcare provider could provide for their children safely, and 30% did not think that the provider had adequately trained staff. One quarter said that the nursery or carer had refused a place exclusively on the grounds of their child’s disability.
I have talked to the Committee about my experience that it is not simply a question of training or even money. In many cases, it is about confidence. Once providers have had some training and support, they feel more confident opening up to more significant difficulties. I welcome the Minister’s offer to work with me to explore the issue, and I ask that the qualifications for providers form part of that offer.
Alex Cunningham
I join others in taking pleasure in serving under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. My remarks will cover new clause 1, which stands in my name and seeks to address workforce qualifications across the childcare sector. Ultimately, for me, it is about the reassurance that parents need that their children are being cared for by professional people, not just to aid their children’s development but to put them in the safest possible hands. That is no reflection on the people who work in the industry, or the service as we call it today. They do a tremendous job generally, but I believe that they, like everybody else, should have continuing professional development.
We all know that there is a clear link between the level of practitioner qualification, the quality of early education and childcare and the outcomes for young children. Just as individual practitioner qualification is important, so are the leadership skills of the people running the establishment. Just as in schools we know that a top-class headteacher and management team can often make the difference between a school being considered excellent or found to be inadequate, there is substantial evidence that early education and childcare have a positive effect on children’s development, particularly for boys and children from low-income families, who are more likely to fall behind early. We need some of the best people caring for our youngest children.
At the same time, there is strong evidence that early language skills provide a solid foundation for school readiness, with strong links to learning to read, attainment in English and maths, earnings potential in adulthood and wider outcomes, including better mental health. Furthermore, high-quality early education, specifically nursery led by graduate early years teachers, has the most significant impact on the early language skills of young children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are more likely to fall behind. Figures show that, for instance, one in five children, including more than a third of the poorest, are not school ready because they fail to meet the expected level of early language development by the age of five. That equates to almost 130,000 children finishing their reception year in 2015 without achieving the expected level of language skills.
Lucy Frazer
In those circumstances, does the hon. Gentleman think it appropriate for the teacher to have a GCSE grade C in English and maths?
Alex Cunningham
Sorry, I think that was a minimum qualification. I want to see continual professional development. As I have stressed time and again, the higher the qualification, the better the outcome for children.
Children growing up in poverty are, on average, 15 months behind in vocabulary development at the age of five compared with their peers, and those eligible for free school meals are 75% less likely to reach the expected standard of language and communication than their peers at the age of five.
Mr Gyimah
I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire was pointing to a contradiction in the Opposition’s position. Their Front-Bench spokesman said that insisting on GCSE maths and English rather than focusing on functional skills might be making things more difficult. The hon. Member for Stockton North seems to be arguing for even more stringent qualification criteria. The Government believe that, given that qualifications are the biggest determinant of the quality of the interaction with the child, it is right that we set them where they are.
Alex Cunningham
I do not think there is any difference between me and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham. We both believe that we should be driving up quality and we both believe that we should see qualifications driven up.
Pat Glass
There is no difference. The difference between us and Government Members is that we understand the different levels of the staff working in childcare. It is absolutely right that teachers will have a GCSE at grade C in maths and English. They need it to matriculate. They cannot get on the course without it. I was talking about level 3 staff who would be working under the direction of a graduate leader in the nursery or a teacher. That is completely different.
Alex Cunningham
Exactly. I hope that that clarification helps the Minister and others. The issue is leadership and different qualifications within the workforce in any one setting.
Despite knowledge of the failure of people in poverty and the 75% of children who are less likely to have the expected standard in language and communication at the age of five, we have seen childcare in England failing to meet the quality standards necessary to improve the outcomes for those children. Only if early education and childcare is of the highest quality and delivered by well qualified staff will there be a positive impact on children’s learning and development, which will help to narrow the gap in attainment for the most disadvantaged. My new clause would provide the Government with the power and the responsibility to ensure that children are cared for and stimulated by a highly qualified workforce.
Ofsted grades are not just a stand-alone proxy for the standard, because the inspection framework does not capture all the elements of quality that are predictive of outcomes for children. Evidence shows that, to ensure that the free offer meets its primary intended purpose of improving outcomes for children, the Government should focus on delivering high-quality, graduate-led care from the age of two to school age through a qualified and well supported early years workforce.
We had a debate earlier today about the needs of disabled children and the specific training that people need. I hope that the Minister will address that when he talks about the workforce and how we can ensure that the people in our nurseries have the necessary qualifications and experience to deal with a whole range of disabilities in the children who come their way.
Back in 2012, the coalition Government commissioned Professor Cathy Nutbrown to undertake an independent review of early years workforce qualifications. Her findings recommended that, if the Government set out a 10-year plan to move to a fully qualified early years workforce and increased the proportion of settings led by a graduate, it would have the greatest measurable impact on children’s outcomes. However, the coalition did not take a lead on that, nor does the Bill.
The quality of childcare is gradually improving, but there are still insufficient high-quality, free places for three and four-year olds, and disadvantaged two-year-olds.
James Berry
The hon. Gentleman should read my speech on childcare. He would see that we agree on a lot, and in fact some of the lines are very similar. Does he agree that we could achieve what he intends in his new clause with encouragement from the Government rather than the straitjacket of legislation?
Alex Cunningham
I am pleased that we can agree on much that was in my speech. I cannot understand what the problem is with requiring people to have qualifications. If you want to be an engineer, you are required to get an engineering degree. I think that if you are required to lead the best-quality care, perhaps you need some form of graduate qualification in childcare, or something associated with it. Of course, we face the possibility that we will have children attending poor-quality settings where they will be unable to access provision that meets their individual needs. This is why new clause 1 would require the Government to publish proposals for the development of the early years workforce to ensure that all three and four-year-olds receive access to high-quality, flexible and accessible early education and childcare provision, delivered by those well qualified, confident and experienced practitioners, and led by that early years graduate.
Mr Gyimah
I want to draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to what is actually happening on the ground, as far as the quality of the workforce is concerned. The number of graduates in the workforce continues to rise. Between 2008 and 2013, the proportion of full day care staff with a degree or higher increased from 5% to 13%. The National Day Nurseries Association June 2015 survey showed that 88% of centres employ a graduate early years teacher. Since 2007, 16,159 individuals have achieved early years professional status.
Alex Cunningham
That, Mr Hanson, is tremendously good news for the childcare sector, there is no doubt about it, but it is not good enough. We are looking at a situation in which there will be a demand for increased provision, yet we have insufficient people coming through the system to fulfil those roles in the future. To my mind, it is clear that the expansion of free childcare requires that we first invest in the very people and infrastructure standing behind it. The Minister just talked at length about the fact that people are getting better in the situation, but we still have this tremendous gap, particularly if we are to provide everything that he wants us to provide.
This amendment would set the Secretary of State the achievable target of laying a report before both Houses within six months of the Act coming into effect, setting out how the Department intends to support such development of the early years workforce. I cannot understand how there can be a problem with that. All we are asking is: what are the Government’s plans? How are we going to see development happen in the future? The report should specifically include targets for increasing the number of practitioners holding level 3 qualifications and the proportion of children receiving early education and childcare led directly by an early years graduate.
The requirement for teaching qualifications has made the headlines over the past few years. Indeed, we all know that Labour committed, before the general election, to ensure that all teachers in all maintained schools should become qualified and continue to expand and strengthen their qualifications through high-quality professional development. As a former member of the Education Committee, I have considered the need for qualified and competent teachers in detail. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham shares my interest in this subject.
With a background focused on children and young people at local authority level, I have witnessed at first hand the importance of education and education policies —as a route into work, a means to attaining personal potential, a mode of better understanding the world we live in, or simply the quenching of a thirst for knowledge. Education is a powerful tool for young people of all ages and provides the foundations on which the future of our country sits, but with this power comes a concomitant responsibility, and that responsibility rests ultimately with those who motivate, inform and inspire our young people. That is why we must take steps to ensure that our education system is designed to deliver the skills and knowledge that the young people of today will need to succeed tomorrow. The crucial requirement of this is making sure that our teachers—their teachers—are fully equipped to do the job. That is the crux of the matter.
The thinking behind new clause 1 is remarkably simple. At its core, it is inspired by the aspiration for our children and young people to have the best possible start in life, and it is informed by the evidence confirming that good quality early education can have a range of benefits for children’s early development. Research indicates that the benefits of such early education extend beyond the early years and right through primary school, adding further weight to the case for mandating qualifications for early years teachers. For example, the “Effective Provision of Pre-School Education” study has shown that children who attend good-quality childcare settings are, on average, seven months ahead in literacy skills, compared with their peers who did not attend pre-school, when starting school. The development that takes place during those early years is crucial and forms the foundations on which all later learning is built. It is, therefore, essential that we equip early years education staff with the skills that they need to support children’s early development and to ensure that no child falls behind before they even reach primary school.
The ramifications for children who start to fall behind in key areas such as early language development are, too often, lifelong, and they affect not only those children’s educational attainment but their future life chances. We face the sorry reality of knowing that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are much more likely than others to fall behind. One in four children in England arrives at primary school without good early language development, and that figure rises to one in three for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, who, as I have mentioned, start school an average of 15 months behind their peers in language and vocabulary.
I am clear that the only route to resolving that unacceptable situation, and to righting the inequality of opportunity that many children and young people grow up facing, is to level the playing field from the outset. Research shows that a well-qualified, confident and experienced workforce are central to the delivery of childcare that improves outcomes for young children. Indeed, the Department for Education went so far as to recognise in its policy statement on the Bill:
“The main driver of quality in a setting is its workforce.”
If those arguments are not already compelling enough, Ofsted has identified that settings in which at least 75% of practitioners are qualified to level 3 achieve better inspection results. A further analysis of private, voluntary and independent sector settings against Ofsted ratings also found a direct link between graduate-led settings and better Ofsted ratings, which demonstrates that graduate-led settings reduced the quality gap in provision in the least and most deprived areas.
Alex Cunningham
That is a tremendous statistic, but, as the Minister says, there is always room for improvement. It is important that we maintain high quality and that we have continuing professional development for everybody so that they can keep their skills up to date and maintain the outstanding outcomes that he has alluded to.
The analysis shows a gap of 10 percentage points in the quality of childcare provision between non-graduate-led settings in the least and most deprived areas. However, when examining settings led by graduates, the research found almost no difference between the quality of provision in the least and most deprived areas. That is a crucial finding, not least because evidence shows that children who grow up in the most disadvantaged areas are least likely to attend a private, voluntary or independent sector setting with a graduate compared with their peers in better-off areas. To top it off, evaluation of the graduate leader fund adds further evidence to the extensive stock showing that settings that employ a graduate leader improve the quality of provision compared with settings that do not, with the findings confirming that employing an early years graduate is a key way of raising the quality of provision in a childcare setting. Further analysis of the graduate leader fund highlights that settings employing a graduate made significant improvements for pre-school children, not just in overall quality of provision but in other key areas such as child-staff interaction, support for children’s communication, language and literacy development, and supporting reasoning, thinking and scientific skills. The Minister’s last intervention demonstrated that that is very much the case.
It appears to be irrefutable that high-quality childcare has a range of benefits for all children, and for disadvantaged children in particular. What is more, the research also shows that there is added value beyond the school gates in supporting those children’s development, reducing the risk of behavioural issues and even supporting parents in the home. We must recognise the challenges that are likely to be faced in delivering such a commitment. Government figures suggest that 600,000 families will be eligible for the 30-hour offer. Providing sufficient places will clearly pose new challenges for the early years system, and many providers will have to be supported to extend their offer if all eligible parents are to be able to access the 30-hour offer.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification. On top of this, we must factor in the need for highly qualified and experienced graduates if we are to deliver the high-quality childcare that we need so much. I bear in mind everything that the Minister said, but 20-odd per cent of providers still do not have any graduate leadership. We need to build on that. On the effectiveness of the expansion—it is an expansion—we are going to need more people in the system. The expansion of free childcare will be dependent on ensuring that there are sufficient numbers of highly qualified and experienced staff to work directly with all three and four-year-olds.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there will be an expansion. We welcome that; it is the purpose of the policy. It is also worth stating that although we are doubling the entitlement, we are not necessarily doubling the demand. A number of children in the system are already doing 15-plus hours instead of 30 hours. Therefore, the need that he has identified might not be as great as he thinks it is.
Alex Cunningham
To the best of my knowledge, we have not actually quantified what the total need is. That is one of the reasons we had the debate on clause 1, which has now been ditched by the Committee. We want to review and understand exactly what provision will be needed. I do not think that is particularly clear.
Currently, a significant proportion of practitioners do not hold a level 3 qualification—the minimum recommended by the Nutbrown review. Roughly a third of childminders, 50% of nursery staff and only 13% of staff in private, voluntary and independent settings currently have a graduate level qualification, compared with as many as 40% in maintained settings. I accept that that will take some time to address. I hope new clause 1 reflects that by allowing some flexibility in setting the targets for the proportion of staff in the early years workforce to have that relevant level 3 qualification and in setting the timescale in which the Government will seek to meet those targets. However, at the same time as including measures to enhance standards, we must do more to boost the status of early years teaching to attract the very best, brightest and most able into the profession.
I understand that some 15,962 individuals have achieved early years professional status and early years teacher status. Since the start of early years initial teacher training in September 2013, 3,206 trainees have been trained, of whom 2,358 have graduated and been awarded early years teacher status. Should we not celebrate that? Of course we should, but in 2014-15 only 860 applicants started funded places. That is quite a reduction—1,467 down on the intake of 2,327 applicants in 2013-14, and 1,140 applicants short of the 2,000 target set for 2014-15. I would like to know what the Minister will do about boosting those numbers and meeting his Department’s targets.
Mrs Drummond
Yesterday, I learned that there are 23 different ways of getting into the teaching profession. Would the hon. Gentleman agree with me that there could be lots of different routes to get into childcare? Some people might want to start at low levels and graduate while they are still working in childcare provision.
Alex Cunningham
I think that people should have the opportunities to start jobs—all sorts of roles—in different ways. I believe very much in that but the Government are making it even more difficult for applicants to come into this role. The reason that we are seeing the fall is largely connected to the debate about pay and the status of early years teachers compared with applicants in programmes granting qualified teacher status.
Childcare workers in England are some of the lowest paid workers in Europe. The average salary of a supervisor in 2011 was just over £16,000 compared with an average of £22,000 in Finland, £23,000 in France and £28,000 in Germany. In private, voluntary and independent settings, non-managerial or supervisory staff are paid, on average, £6.80 an hour in full-day care settings and £8.60 in sessional settings.
Alex Cunningham
I would welcome the new national living wage if it were the actual living wage. It is important to drive up wages across all sectors and I especially welcome it in this particular setting. The evidence suggests that if a setting is graduate led there is an impact on pay. In 2013, in graduate-led settings the average hourly pay of staff in full-day care settings was £8.70, compared with £8.20 in non-graduate-led settings. In sessional settings led by graduates, the average hourly pay was £9.80, compared with £8.20 in non-graduate-led settings. It can be little wonder that low pay is frequently cited as a key challenge to recruiting and retaining graduate-level staff. That makes me fear that more needs to be done to attract new entrants and to retain experienced practitioners.
I hope that the proposals in new clause 1 would allow the Government sufficient leeway to design measures to ensure enough well-qualified and experienced staff to deliver free early education and childcare and to make certain that that is of high quality. I see no reason why the Government should not have sufficient scope to put in place measures that would also offer to support practitioners to work towards a level 3 qualification to increase the number of settings that are graduate led. As I have mentioned, the Department has already recognised in its policy statement on the Bill that the workforce is the main driver of quality. I hope that the Minister will support new clause 1 as the means to optimise such quality and to maximise the opportunities for our children and young people—after all, that is what we are here to talk about.
Mr Gyimah
The debate on the amendment and new clause 1 is important because it concerns the quality in early years education.
As the father of a 20-month-old who is in a full-day care setting, in common with all parents I want my child to be in a safe and secure environment, looked after by people who are well qualified and know what they are doing. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Members for Stockton North, for North West Durham and for Birmingham, Yardley for raising the important issue of the qualifications of the workforce and the impact on the care and early education of the young children involved, including those with special educational needs and disabilities.
The hon. Member for North West Durham has specialist knowledge about provision for disabled children. She most expertly deployed that knowledge and her commitment to ensure that all children should have access to quality care in her role as the co-chair of the parliamentary inquiry into childcare for disabled children.
I support the purpose of the amendments. I agree that the quality of the workforce is a vital ingredient in providing good-quality early education and care to meet the needs of all children, including those with SEN. The experiences of children in childcare settings are shaped by their interactions with staff, so it is critical that staff are suitably qualified and skilled.
I hope that it will be helpful if I set out the existing requirements for staff qualifications under secondary legislation. In recognition of the fact that the qualification levels of staff affect the experiences of children in early education and childcare settings, the early years foundation stage framework sets out minimum qualification levels. Those qualification requirements make up part of the staff-to-child ratios. I have already confirmed on Second Reading and in speeches outside the House that we are not changing ratios or qualification requirements to deliver the 30-hour entitlement.
The qualification level of the early years workforce has risen in recent years. Continuing this increase has been a key aim of the Government’s workforce strategy through the introduction of early years educator qualifications at level 3, and early years initial teacher training. Research tells us that in group day-care settings, 87% of the workforce have a relevant qualification at level 3—that should be welcomed. Indeed, many of the workforce are qualified at graduate level. Since 2007, more than 16,000 individuals have achieved the specialised qualifications of early years professional status and early years teacher status.
Moreover, the inspection framework carried out by Ofsted is clearly focused on children’s outcomes and the quality of teaching and learning in the early years. Providers are showing the arrangements they have in place for staff supervision and professional development that then drive high-quality interactions with children. Ofsted’s new common inspection framework is also bringing more consistency to its inspection approach across early years providers and schools. The latest outcome statistics, at August 2015, show that 85% of providers on the early years register were rated good or outstanding for overall effectiveness.
Alex Cunningham
I hope that this is not out of order, but I have to be elsewhere on Front-Bench duties, so I want to say that I appreciated the explanations given by the Minister in his many interventions during my speech and I do not intend to press new clause 1 to a vote.
The Chair
For information, whether the hon. Gentleman is here or not, new clause 1 would not be voted until the end of the Bill.
Mr Gyimah
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling new clause 1, and I understand that he has other duties. I will carry on setting out our argument on the workforce strategy, which he can follow in Hansard, in his absence.
Despite the good indications of progress so far, we cannot be complacent. For example, members of the sector have told me that some childcare businesses are having difficulty attracting and retaining staff at level 3. I have asked the sector to provide evidence of that, and I am committed to working with them to understand the challenges and to find ways to tackle them while ensuring that a quality workforce remains.
Many comments have been made about why the Department has insisted on GCSE English and maths on exit and about whether that is having an impact on people getting their level 3 qualifications. I see maths and English, the two most important vocational subjects, as a requirement for any job. Functional skills, which the hon. Member for North West Durham specifically asked about, at level 2 do not have the same breadth of content as GCSEs and are sometimes described by awarding bodies as roughly equivalent to half a GCSE, which is why we have taken our position. As I said to the sector, if evidence can be provided that that is having an impact on recruitment, I am willing to consider it. The collaborative approach has already proved successful. Over the summer, I responded to calls from the sector to amend the entry requirements for level 3 courses to enable more trainees to undertake childcare training. I am told by childcare employers that that is helping more staff access training. As Sue Robb, head of early years at 4Children, said:
“We welcome the government’s decision that apprentices can work for their childcare qualifications at the same time as studying for their GCSEs in maths and English. This will encourage more apprentices into childcare and early years.”
I have spoken previously about this, but I want to be clear that I am committed to publishing a workforce strategy that will enable staff to reach their potential and forge a successful career in early years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South indicated in an intervention, career progression must be the central strand of any workforce strategy, which needs to consider the role of qualifications from entry level to graduate level and on-the-job training in order to attract and retain a good quality workforce. It is not only about getting people in at level 2 or level 3, but about getting the right ladders in place so that they can progress throughout their career.
Chloe Smith
Does the Minister agree that enterprise is an important skill in this blend? After all, this is a major opportunity for not only the maintained sector, but the private, voluntary and independent sectors. There is an opportunity here for young people, or perhaps people who are already qualified, to set up their own business.
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend makes an excellent, important point in two respects. First, the new funding route and the associated certainty should make it attractive for new providers to enter the market and deliver childcare for working parents. Secondly, when we look at careers and career progression, we should consider that someone might start at level 2 or level 3 but then eventually start their own nursery or childcare business in another part of the country and deliver for parents. With that in mind, we need to make sure, as we look at the workforce strategy, that the opportunities are there for people to progress, fulfil their potential and realise their aspirations.
The strategy will not only look at apprenticeship qualifications at levels 2 and 3 but consider how we can attract even more graduates into early years. As part of the strategy, I would like to consider how the workforce can access training and support that enables them to offer early education and care to all children, including those with special educational needs. There are already some important requirements in place regarding the individual needs of children.
To make qualification requirements have a real impact on the quality of care that children receive, it is important to make sure that they equip staff with the necessary skills to identify and meet individual needs. That is why the level 3 early years educator criteria, which are set by Government, require that trainees learn how to assess and meet needs.
The teacher standards also require early years teachers to have those skills. Early years teachers must demonstrate a clear understanding of the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, and be able to use and evaluate distinctive approaches to engage and support them. New apprenticeship standards being developed by a group of childcare employers will also take into consideration the knowledge and skills necessary to support children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Inspection obviously plays a crucial role by focusing on outcomes and reviewing how children in settings have made progress. It requires settings to demonstrate how they have assessed and met the needs of children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. That is a powerful incentive for providers to ensure that staff meet the needs of those children and meet all the requirements placed on them through secondary legislation.
Under the EYFS framework, all children are to be allocated a key person to assess and meet their needs. In addition, the “Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years” sets out clear expectations on educational institutions, including early years providers, for identifying and supporting children with SEND. The code sets out a graduated approach, which involves seeking specialist advice and intervention where appropriate.
To ensure that providers and local authorities are equipped to deliver the expectations of the new code of practice, we are funding a number of projects to better equip the early years workforce to support children with SEND. They include the National Day Nurseries Association, which will build on local systems for self-improvement through SEND champions and the excellent Pen Green centre. That centre supports a model of peer-to-peer training to help practitioners gain the knowledge and skills that they need to support children’s needs.
Funding provided to support partnerships between teaching schools and private, voluntary and independent sector providers has also enabled some good practice in supporting children with SEND. For example, Tor View school, a specialist learning community in east Lancashire, is leading a project that is helping PVI sector providers in disadvantaged areas of Burnley and Rossendale improve their support for children with SEND. SEND specialists have worked with staff so that they can more confidently identify SEND issues and provide support for children and their families.
In some cases, it will be necessary for staff to undertake specific training to support a disabled child in their care. In such circumstances, a childcare provider can ask their local authority for funding to support such training. As the individual needs of children may differ greatly, I do not think it is appropriate to set out qualification requirements for all staff working with disabled children. The Government support a personalised approach to meeting children’s needs, whereby providers, in partnership with their local authority, determine what support is needed and how it will be accessed for each individual child.
A number of other points have been raised, for example on having more graduates in the sector. For clarification, the EYFS framework is clear that trained graduates can lead settings and utilise a 1:13 ratio in doing so.
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady asks a good question. As I have outlined, the staff to child ratios in the EYFS framework will not change between the first and second 15 hours. Nor will qualifications or space requirements. I hope that the plans I have set out and the commitments I have made to develop and publish a workforce strategy that considers career progression routes, on-the-job training, how we can attract more graduates into the sector and support for staff in meeting the individual needs of children, will reassure hon. Members that the Government share their view that a well qualified workforce is vital. In view of that, I hope that the hon. Member for North West Durham will feel reassured enough to withdraw her amendment.
Pat Glass
I welcome the Minister’s assurance. The thinking behind the amendments was that there are clear links between qualified, well trained staff and good outcomes. That is recognised, not least by Ofsted. There is a shortage of qualified support staff under the current provisions, and providers tell us that they are not in a position to recruit—they are struggling to recruit even for the existing 15 hours. We therefore have concerns about how that will be carried forward into the expansion of the system.
I welcome the Minister’s assurance that if the requirement of a GCSE in maths and English on exit is causing disruption in recruitment—
Pat Glass
There appears to be evidence of that at the moment, so I welcome his assurance that he will look at that again. I was disappointed to hear him say that some awarding bodies are saying that functional skills are equal to half a GCSE. I have not heard that. They certainly did not give that evidence to the Education Committee when we looked at the matter in some detail. Providers and awarding bodies said that functional skills are different—more pragmatic in the workplace, but not easier. That was the evidence given to the Education Committee, on which we made recommendations. We are not looking to dumb down in any way, but given that we face expansion and that we are struggling to recruit qualified level 3 support staff, the Government should examine that.
As the Minister said, well trained staff are particularly important in the case of disabled children, which is the thinking behind amendment 11—we would never allow unqualified or untrained staff to work with children with disabilities in schools. Parents are telling us that part of the problem is that they cannot access the current 15 hours’ provision, and if that is the case, we need to explore that.
I heard what the Minister said about the excellent Pen Green nursery. It would be wonderful if we could reproduce Margy, her staff and Pen Green across every one of our constituencies. I strongly urge hon. Members to have a look at it, because they will want it in their constituencies.
I understand that qualifications are not the same as appropriate qualifications, which are not the same as training. They are different things. One issue I had with the Government’s policy in the previous Parliament on unqualified staff in free schools was that, although I would have qualified to teach mathematics because I have an MSc, it was not until I did a BEd that I understood things such as child development; identifying, assessing, helping and intervening with SEN; and managing behaviour. Those are the kinds of things that come through qualifications. People learn to differentiate in the curriculum and deliver a curriculum across the range of ability. They learn the science of learning, pedagogy and, almost more importantly, credibility. If a teacher does not have credibility with the parents, their colleagues and, more importantly—particularly if they are teaching in a secondary school—the children, they will quickly be sussed out. That is about not just having qualifications, but having the appropriate qualifications and training. Given that the Minister has offered to work with me in looking at how we can help more disabled families access childcare—presumably that offer also includes looking at the qualifications and training needed to enable them to do that—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Margot James.)
Housing and Planning Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
I welcome the Committee to what must be the penultimate day of our consideration of the detail of the Bill, given that it must be reported by 5 pm on Thursday evening.
Clause 104
Approval condition where development order grants permission for building
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 190, in clause 104, page 48, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—
“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 60 (permission granted by development order), after subsection (1) insert—”.
This amendment is consequential to amendments 191 and 192.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 191, in clause 104, page 48, line 42, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 70 (Determination of applications: general considerations), in subsection (1)(a) after ‘permission’ insert ‘in whole or in part and’”.
This amendment gives local planning authorities the same power as the Secretary of State presently has on appeal to grant planning permission for part of the development proposed in an application.
Amendment 192, in clause 104, page 49, line 3, at end insert—
“(4A) In section 78 (Right to appeal against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions), in subsection (1)(a), after ‘it’ insert ‘in part or’”.
This amendment gives local planning authorities the same power as the Secretary of State presently has on appeal to grant planning permission for part of the development proposed in an application.
Stephen Hammond
I share your excitement that this is our penultimate day of scrutiny, Mr Gray, and I am pleased to see you in the Chair.
Many of us have a number of developments in our constituencies that are mostly popular and enjoy almost universal acceptance, but have controversial aspects. I can think of three sizable potential developments in my constituency where a large amount of what is being proposed is universally popular, but small elements are not so popular. I can think of one within the last year to which that applies.
The three amendments would make a relatively small technical change that is absolutely in line with what the Government are trying to do—to bring forth more housing and more development more quickly. The thrust of the amendments is to give local planning authorities exactly the same power as the Secretary of State has on appeal to grant planning permission for part of a development proposed. Such a power would be useful where planning applications can be split into several different elements, one of which is acceptable. I can think of a regeneration scheme currently going through for the southern end of my constituency, large elements of which are popular, but there are two controversial elements involving the scale and density of certain housing.
The amendments would put into statute a power for planning authorities. At present, planning authorities have the implicit ability to grant a lesser permission by using some of the conditions—a relevant case is Kent County Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment 1976. The planning practice guidance says that express powers to issue split decisions were given to the Secretary of State and the inspectors in section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 when it was amended, allowing the Secretary of State and inspectors to reverse or vary any part of the decision of any local planning authority where the approved part is severable or substantially different from the scheme applied for. Those factors need to be taken into consideration.
The three amendments have considerable support. The chairman of the board of the Planning Officers Society recently spoke in favour of such an amendment. The amendment would grant the ability on appeal to approve a scheme, the larger part or some parts of which enjoy great support, while other parts do not.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Thomas
It is always important to debate new provisions. In that spirit, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I think of the proposal to redevelop the College Road site in my constituency. The bottom area, in which a new square is proposed to attract high-end restaurants and so on, is very popular, but the height of the overall development, at 20-plus storeys, is not popular. Might that development benefit from his amendment, or would it not be covered?
Stephen Hammond
From that limited explanation, I think it probably would be covered. As I said in my opening remarks, we all know developments where parts enjoy substantial support, yet some elements do not, particularly if the parts are severable from each other inside the application.
The amendments would allow a scheme to be approved in part. The purpose is to allow development to get under way more quickly. I accept that there will be circumstances where it is inappropriate or impossible to separate parts of schemes, but the amendments would allow developments and housing supply to happen more quickly, which is the thrust of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will either reassure me that his interpretation of the Government’s interpretation of the guidance is sufficient—many planning officers do not think it is—or let me know what his thoughts are and whether there may be room for discussion before the Bill proceeds further.
Mr Thomas
Very briefly, and following up the hon. Gentleman’s request for more information, I wish to talk about the planned development on the College Road site in Harrow West, which may or may not be covered by the amendment. The proposed development is in the centre of the shopping area in my constituency, so it is well known to most of my constituents. Many of them will be concerned about its height—potentially 20-plus storeys high, it might block out the iconic St Mary’s church in Harrow on the Hill. If there was some way in which residents, or the inspector on behalf of residents, could intervene to express a view on the height, the other parts of the proposed development at ground level, which will refresh and improve a part of Harrow town centre that has been blighted by lack of development for some time, would be popular. It is the height that worries residents. If the hon. Gentleman’s proposal for Wimbledon were to allow an inspector to vary something like the height of a development, I am sure his amendment would be of considerable interest to my constituents. I, too, look to the Minister with great interest to see whether his hon. Friend has managed to persuade him.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in these last sittings of the Committee, Mr Gray.
Local planning authorities have the ability to issue planning permission for part of a development by way of conditions. The use of conditions in this way is restricted in case law so that what is granted permission by the local authority does not fundamentally differ from what the applicant applied for and the scheme consulted on. Best practice is only to grant permission in part with the agreement of the applicant, because to do otherwise can have a substantial impact on the wider viability of a development. The proposed amendment would remove those restrictions and allow local authorities to grant permission for something substantially different from the scheme that was applied for.
I have not had a chance to look at the amendment in much detail or to explore the potential impact, but accepting it would have a number of unintended consequences. They could include depriving the public of the opportunity to be consulted and to comment on an application that is different from the one that was actually applied for. That has serious implications. There may also be a risk of not complying with the requirements of regulations made in 2011 under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 if the development is significantly different from that applied for and consulted on.
None the less, my hon. Friend raises an interesting question about the way these permissions in part can be and are used to get developments going where they are consensual and agreed, although it may take longer to work through issues relating to other parts of the development on a larger scale. If he will bear with me, I would like to consider this further and come back to him, perhaps outside the Bill. The question has been raised and is due wider consideration and consultation with the sector. For those reasons, I hope my hon. Friend will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Stephen Hammond
I raised these points because I was very keen to hear my hon. Friend’s response, and I have listened carefully. He has been extraordinarily kind in giving me time to discuss some of these matters before the Committee. I heard his point about the unintended consequences and I hope that if he grants me further time, I will be able to persuade him that what I propose will not substantially alter schemes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
Stephen Hammond
I beg to move amendment 193, in clause 104, page 49, line 3, at end insert—
“(4B) In section 106 (Planning obligations), after subsection (2) insert—
(2A) A local planning authority may enter into a planning obligation as a person interested in land and as the local planning authority, including an obligation by agreement in both categories.”
This amendment empowers local planning authorities to make planning obligations binding their own land, for example, if they wish to grant planning permission prior to selling land for development.
Again, the amendment is designed to allow housing development to come forward substantially more quickly. The issue it deals with is relatively minor but relatively important. One of the thrusts of the Government’s plans to bring forth more applications is to bring excess unused public land into use more quickly. Local planning authorities will often seek planning permission on their own land, either for their own schemes or to sell land with consent for development. Developers may also seek to get planning permission on the land when it is owned either in whole or in part by local planning authorities. Given that the Government intend to make public sector land available for development, I think it is highly likely that we will see more applications that fit in this category over the next few years.
At the moment, a planning obligation will bind the interests in land only of the parties to it. The problem—I accept it is relatively small—is that a local planning authority can enter into a planning obligation as the landowner, and there is concern about whether, legally, it can enter into an obligation with itself. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, there is some case law that obscures whether this can happen, but if the local authority cannot do so, there will be some issues about how quickly that land can be brought into use. The attempts to get round this, as he will know, are complex, uncertain and likely to cause delay. This relatively simple amendment will allow a local planning authority to enter into a consent with itself.
Mr Thomas
I want to support the hon. Gentleman as a fellow London MP, but I think it would help him to gain the Committee’s support if he could give us some examples of where the problem he describes has been enough to stop development going ahead. I do not want to cause him trouble or difficulty, but I want to see how serious the problem is.
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I prefaced my remarks about the clause by saying that is a relatively small but nonetheless important point. It is likely to become more important as we see more and more unused public sector land released. I can think of a circumstance of a relatively small pocket of public land where a local authority was the owner, but was also acting as the authority in terms of granting planning permission to produce a scheme of, I think, 12 properties in part of my constituency. I know there are a number of planning experts on the Committee with much greater knowledge than I have who would be able to confirm the point that, although such cases may not be numerous, resolving the issue is complex and there may be problems in bringing land forward.
I am not suggesting that it is a huge problem, but a relatively small amendment to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will authorise a planning authority to act as a party with an interest in the land as well as the planning authority granting an obligation. That obligation may be made unilaterally or by agreement, so it is important that it is legally acceptable when made by agreement. I look forward to the Minister’s response. The amendment, rather than like my previous ones, would help the Government with its ambition to bring forward housing developments more quickly.
Brandon Lewis
It is vital that local authorities are able to mitigate the impact of unacceptable development and to make it acceptable for their communities in planning terms. Planning obligations play a key role, but the introduction of the community infrastructure levy has already reduced the need for such obligations in many circumstances. In recognition of the importance of planning obligations, we have made a commitment in our productivity plan in Government to introduce a dispute resolution mechanism for section 106 agreements, to speed up negotiations and enable housing starts to proceed much more quickly. We have also improved the guidance on the use of the obligations.
The amendment would allow local planning authorities to make planning obligations binding on their own land—for example, if they wished to grant planning permission before selling land for development. Planning permission can be granted subject to conditions, including Grampian or negative conditions, that require certain actions to be undertaken, and local authorities can include requirements in a contract of sale when they dispose of land. Although I will keep the situation under review, at this time I am not convinced that the amendment is required. I therefore invite my hon. Friend to withdraw it, while saying to him that perhaps outside of the Bill we can look at the matter further.
Stephen Hammond
My hon. Friend is, as ever, persuasive and logical in his argument. It would be appropriate therefore, on the basis of his reassurance that he intends to keep the matter under review, that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 284, in clause 104, page 49, line 3, at end insert—
“( ) When granting development orders, local planning authorities shall prescribe, in accordance with the objectively assessed needs identified in the Local Plan—
(a) Appropriate density;
(b) Suitable dwelling mix;
(c) Affordable housing required, and
(d) Community and social infrastructure requirements.”
This amendment would ensure that development is suitable in planning terms on a site specific basis, and will also assist in controlling the price of land. The upfront identification of planning conditions will speed up the time it takes for developers to start on site, and also complete development.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 285, in clause 104, page 49, line 3, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State must make regulations which—
(a) require sufficient testing of the land to be carried out before permission in principle may be granted, and
(b) ensure provision of adequate funding to carry out the testing in subsection (a).
In this subsection ‘sufficient testing’ means carrying out necessary studies and assessments to ensure that a site is suitable for the development benefiting from permissions in principle.”
Helen Hayes
These are probing amendments, designed to explore further the concept of permission in principle and the Government’s intentions in introducing it. There is considerable confusion regarding the concept and what it will mean for the English planning system and local communities. The Opposition wish to see a planning system that delivers the housing we need but does not override or overrule communities, or repeat the mistakes of the 1980s, when communities were built and developed and left without the facilities they needed to thrive and with no scope for future expansion.
I understand that there will be three types of permission in principle: sites included in brownfield registers, sites identified in local and neighbourhood plans, and straight applications made to local authorities. Already, permission in principle is starting to look confusing, since those three routes will have been subject to different levels of scoping and public consultation. It is not clear what needs to be known about a site or who needs to have commented on its suitability for permission in principle to be granted. A site that has been identified through the local planning process will have been consulted on. The consultation arrangements for brownfield registers are not yet clear, and an application made by a landowner or developer direct to a local authority might have had no consultation at all on the principle of development.
Permission in principle, as far as we can tell, will not set any parameters for development other than land use. A developer will know that housing can be built on a site, but not how much, or of what size or type, or what the design and quality standards must be. Importantly, developers will not necessarily know anything about the land on which they want to build, unless they have voluntarily undertaken investigations. I will set out why I believe that permission in principle as drafted offers nothing to local communities and little to developers, and why, as a consequence, it will fail to speed up the pace of development or to help to secure new homes.
The current development management process balances the interests of landowners and developers and local communities. Planning permission gives developers the certainty they need to unlock the finance for development, in return for having undertaken a rigorous process of analysis and design and consulted with local communities. Local communities have the opportunity to comment on and feed into the planning process and, where necessary, to make objections, in return for which parameters and safeguards should be written into the planning permission to help ensure the best possible outcomes for communities.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Many of us remember the brutalist structures built in the 1960s and planned under Tory Governments in the 1950s, and we recognise how dreadful many of those buildings are. Does my hon. Friend have any fear that proposals such as the Government’s will lead us back to those brutalist buildings?
Helen Hayes
One of the great concerns about the Government’s proposals is that at present they contain no safeguards on quality of design, which our communities all care very much about. Which of us, as elected representatives, has not been asked to represent constituents objecting to a planning application because it is too tall, or too many homes are proposed, or because it is all small flats where the local need is for family-sized homes, or there is insufficient affordable housing?
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Some of the best dwellings in the country are the old estates in central London, such as the Cadogan estate and the Belgravia estate. One thing that they have in common is that they are dense and tall. The hon. Lady said “too tall”. Who is to say what is too tall?
Helen Hayes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am not sure he was listening to my comments. I was saying that many of us, as elected representatives, have been asked to support communities in objecting to applications involving buildings considered by the community to be too tall. The point I am making is that if the content of a permission in principle contains height parameters, it will reduce the scope for objections on those grounds, because the matter has already been resolved. Communities can be secure in the knowledge that the content on height has been agreed. That is the point that I was making.
Similar grounds for objection include concern that an application will leave the area too built-up without adequate open space, or that there will be too much pressure on schools or GP practices as a consequence of development. A minimum level of detail contained within a permission in principle, which could be stated within the local plan or within the listing on the brownfield register, or determined by the local authority where an individual applicant comes forward, will be helpful in giving a genuine level of certainty to developers and a genuine level of comfort to communities.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
As an hon. Friend said to me just now, the proposal is not for in principle permission but detailed permission. It is the Stalinist tractor figures. The hon. Lady would be more compelling and persuasive in her arguments if there were any timescale to give effect to the changes. She will know that the uncertainty over permitted development rights, the conversion of offices into houses or flats, has stymied that development to a certain extent. To include the amendment in the Bill would do exactly the same thing and slow down the production of people’s homes.
Helen Hayes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, notwithstanding the reference to Soviet dictators, which is never a helpful contribution to political debate in this Parliament—I stand by that. He made a good point about the need for timescale and for the development management process to be rigorously managed. I agree with him on that point.
The content of permission in principle for which I argue could be contained in the entry on the brownfield register about a particular site. It could be part of the process of designating that site on the brownfield register. It could be part of the local plan process, and it could be something that the local authority designates when an applicant comes forward in person.
Without that level of detail, permission in principle is a very confused concept. It purports to be a move towards a zonal system but it misses the key point about the zonal system in countries such as the Netherlands, which is that all of the work required to give certainty through the planning process is undertaken in those countries during the plan-making stage. A zonal system that has comparatively little detail at the plan-making stage, and apparently even less detail in the planning permission stage, gives certainty to no one, will fail to minimise risk and may even succeed in increasing—
Helen Hayes
I would like to make a little more progress, if I may.
It may even succeed in increasing alarm local communities, leading to further objections and challenges at the technical details stage.
The amendment is supported by the National Housing Federation written evidence that says:
“We believe that permission in principle should be broadly comparable with outline permission. So, for it to be granted, there will need to be clarity over the number of homes to be delivered, the tenure mix, the house type, the density and other permitted uses…and the permission in principle, should be time-bound to incentivise delivery.”
Amendment 285 seeks to ensure that sufficient investigatory work is undertaken prior to permission in principle being granted to determine that the site in question is suitable for the proposed development. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the information about a site that must be known before permission in principle is granted. The content of that information should be defined by the regulations, but obvious examples include heritage and archeological considerations, ground contamination, wildlife habitats and protected species, flood risk and rights of light to neighbours. There are several others.
It seems only sensible that planning permission in principle should not be granted on whim or a hunch but on the basis of a sufficient level of information for all concerned to be confident that the land is suitable and that development can be delivered.
It is not at all clear how permission in principle will relate to technical details consent, or that other forms of consent that are currently required in sensitive locations, such as demolition consent, listed building consent or conservation area consent, will still be required.
Historic England has presented a case study that illustrates the issue well: brownfield land in an historic town centre. It may be possible to judge without too much detail that 10 housing units might be developed on the site. Permission in principle could, therefore, be given, but what may be very serious is the impact on below-ground archaeology, the massing of the building and the style of the architecture. If these issues cannot be dealt with thoroughly at the technical details stage, then nationally important archaeology and historical places, which I think all of us on the Committee would agree that we value, could be seriously at risk.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Is not the whole purpose of the technical details consent stage that exactly the matters the hon. Lady has referred to will get considered fully at that point, prior to full permission being given? If we try to force all these things to be considered at the in principle stage, it will simply place obstacles in the path of the in principle consent being given in the first place by making it much more difficult to achieve.
Helen Hayes
What I am not clear about is the relationship between in principle consent and technical details consent if something as significant as a Roman fort underneath a site or other important archaeological considerations emerges at the technical details stage that would override the suitability of the principle of development on the site. What is the relationship between the two forms of consent, and can development be refused on principle at the technical details stage? That is unclear, and many of the important stakeholders, including Historic England, the National Federation of Housing Associations, and the Town and Country Planning Association, have made representations to this Committee along those lines.
Mr Thomas
One thinks at the moment of the flooding that is taking place in many parts of the country. From time to time, there will be applications to build on a floodplain. Would my hon. Friend’s amendment potentially give a developer an indication of what might be acceptable to be built on a site that is in a floodplain, bearing in mind the potential risk to exacerbate flooding down the line?
Helen Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. What would arise from the adoption of amendment 285 is the provision in the regulations whereby development in flood risk areas, including the issue of whether or not a development is in the floodplain, should have been identified and that information set out prior to permission in principle being granted. That would give some security to communities that development is not being undertaken in an irresponsible way.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I refer my hon. Friend back for a moment to the intervention from the hon. Member for Croydon South. I think that part of the discussion that we had in the Committee last Thursday was exactly about that question of what would happen if something has permission in principle but it is then discovered that the site is an important archaeological site. Can the permission in principle be removed? I think there was clarification from the Minister, but perhaps he could return to that issue at some point today to say whether or not the permission in principle would be removed on that basis.
Helen Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In drawing to a close, I simply say that the amendments taken together seek to ensure that permission in principle is underpinned by a sufficient level of knowledge about the site and its context, so that it is genuinely meaningful both to local communities and developers. Without that, I fear that developers will find this device to be a hollow one that provides no certainty at all, and communities will simply be let down and will feel the need to object to and challenge the process at the technical details stage, or through the courts.
I hope the Minister will consider the amendments and provide reassurance about the issues I have raised.
Seema Kennedy
I will speak quickly about amendments 285 and 285, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. Referring to what my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said, I think that the whole thrust of these clauses is to have permission in principle to allow people to start building quickly, and attaching too many conditions would slow the process down. I speak as somebody who has acted as a developer, developing a piece of land that had been occupied by Courtaulds for 50 years. It is highly contaminated, but the cost of decontamination has been gradually coming down during the last 30 years.
I wanted to ask the hon. Lady about paragraph (a) in amendment 284. Are there not already adequate provisions in environmental law, land law and laws of tort that cover that material? She talked about risk and knowledge. Currently, there is a good balance in the Bill between the knowledge that a developer would have and the risk they are willing to take, whereas the paragraph (b) of the amendment would put more of that risk on to the taxpayer. Again, it would slow down the process and put more of the burden on the public purse rather than on the developers.
Dr Blackman-Woods
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Gray. I rise to support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. I seek further clarification from the Minister following our discussions on Thursday. Unusually, I want to thank him for putting the policy factsheet on permission in principle into the House of Commons Library yesterday. I think he intended to help us get a better understanding of what the Government seek to achieve in this part of the Bill.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Unfortunately, unless I missed it, there was not an operational document attached. Perhaps that is something about which we will get some clarification from the Minister. After all, we do not have many sittings left to be enlightened about the contents of the operational document. Presumably, it will come forward very quickly indeed.
I was somewhat unusually in the middle of thanking the Minister for the document. However, unfortunately, when I actually read the document, I thought, “This provides more questions than answers about how permission in principle will operate in practice,” so I have a few questions to ask the Minister this morning. There are now not three but four ways to get planning permission in this country. We know from our discussion on Thursday that the first way is through land being placed on a brownfield register. The second is clearly outlined in the factsheet, which states:
“The Bill will allow permission in principle to be granted automatically when housing is allocated in future local and neighbourhood plans or identified on brownfield registers.”
We need clarity from the Minister on that very strange wording. Does “future” mean “from now on”? In other words, does it mean that all of the current plans that have been adopted are not the plans on which permission in principle will be granted? Does it mean that it will be granted for new plans that will presumably start at some time that will be set out in regulations? Does it apply to neighbourhood plans that perhaps were approved just last week following a referendum? The factsheet very clearly says “future”, so one has to assume that it does not mean the ones that are currently in existence.
That is a really important point, because in our discussion on Thursday it was suggested that permission in principle will be attached to plans that have already been adopted. We are totally unclear, on the basis of that document, about which plans we are talking about. Are they the ones that have been adopted? Will there be a new system where all the plans have to be redone? Will they go through a process that we do not know about at the moment so that permission in principle can be given? I was really surprised to see that in the document following our discussion on Thursday when no mention was made of the confusion about what plans we might be talking about.
There is a third possibility for getting planning permission, which seems to go direct to the local authority. A paragraph in the document states:
“Recognising the specific challenges that developers of smaller sites can face, the Bill will also make provision for permission in principle to be granted for minor development on application to the local authority.”
Through what process will they make an application to the local authority, and what role will there be for local people having a say? Do the sites have to already be on the brownfield register, or is this in addition to the register? Such matters are incredibly important and will affect all our constituencies and our constituents’ ability to have a say over what development takes place in their area.
I have another question for the Minister, although how he will answer when he is not listening is beyond me. Nevertheless, the document states:
“Permission in principle will only be granted where development is considered to be locally acceptable in principle.”
How will that be known? By what process will people be consulted to give their views on a development, particularly since the paragraph above states that developers can go direct to the local authority? We do not know whether that bypasses the local community or whether it goes via the brownfield register or a local or neighbourhood plan. Those are my questions.
The final mechanism for getting planning permission is where a local authority is designated and people can choose to go directly to the Secretary of State to get planning permission. There could be four ways to get planning permission, or there could be three ways. We are not absolutely clear. Unfortunately, the document, which I know was intended to be helpful, has not given us the answers that we sought on Thursday. Perhaps the Minister will come back and clarify the issues for us this morning.
There are a couple of other matters in the excellent amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood that need to be emphasised. The document that was placed in the House of Commons Library yesterday states:
“The Government has engaged widely with a range of key stakeholders with different interests—including local government, planning sector, house builders, other developers, lenders, and environmental and community groups. This engagement has been tremendously useful and has influenced our thinking. We look forward to continuing discussions as we further work up the finer details, and expect to publish a detailed consultation later this year.”
Who have the Government consulted about the proposals in the document? Yesterday, I contacted several local authorities, a few developers, and some of the main planning umbrella organisations. None of them had been consulted on the proposals. If the Government are going to put that in a document in the House of Commons Library, we need to have some information demonstrating to us who has been consulted and what they said. The summary on my piece of paper does not tell us what they said, let alone who they are. That is a major problem for us when debating the clauses. There is no doubt that it is helpful to have that document, but it would have been more helpful to have had it last week.
Yesterday, we got two consultation papers—one on the equality statement on the proposed changes through permission in principle and other elements of the Bill, and one on the operation of permission in principle—but I hope it will not have escaped members of the Committee that we discussed some of those issues on Thursday afternoon, in advance of the consultation papers being issued. I am not sure whether that is just tardiness on the Government’s behalf or whether there is more to it, but hopefully we will be able to return to the contents of the consultation documents at some later stage, because they go through a lot of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood questioned earlier about the exact nature of brownfield and how the Government will define “affordable housing”. All those sorts of things are in the consultation documents.
Personally, although the Minister might have a different view, I think it would have been helpful if those consultations had taken place in advance of legislation being produced, rather than afterwards. It is not clear whether significant elements of the Bill will be able to be changed as a result of that consultation exercise because the Bill will probably have completed its passage through Parliament before the consultation reports. That prompts the question why the consultation is happening now. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on the consultation’s exact purpose.
As my hon. Friend said, these important concerns are not only being raised by Opposition Members. A number of people have written in to comment. I have brought a sample of five or six to mention this morning, but many, many different organisations from across the planning and housing sector have written in to say, “Look, we don’t really have a problem”—this is where we all are—“with permission in principle as a principle, but approving legislation without knowing exactly how it will operate and without ironing out the issue of what happens with regard to material considerations or technical details that happen, or are discovered, further down the line is a huge problem.”
Wildlife and Countryside Link reminds us all that the clauses are “profoundly radical” and are some of the most contentious in the Bill. Wildlife and Countryside Link says that we are allowing
“the Secretary of State to create a development order, for any land allocated for development in a qualifying document… that gives permission to development in principle.”
Wildlife and Countryside Link says that the Bill allows the granting of permission in principle whether or not the qualifying document is in place, or even in existence, when a local development order is made. That is getting to the nub of the question because, if the Wildlife and Countryside Link is correct, I do not see how it fits with what the Government are saying in this document—the one they put in the House of Commons Library—about future development plans and neighbourhood plans. Or are they in fact saying that this will be some future document, and it does not matter whether it is in existence at the moment because the Secretary of State will be able to grant permission anyway?
Does the document have to be in place? Is it a future document? How is the Secretary of State going to take note of that document? Does he need to take note of it, or can he just decide himself that site A in area B shall have permission in principle because someone has made an application directly to him?
Mr Bacon
I will ignore that comment from the hon. Member for Harrow West and concentrate on my intervention. We have had enough parping from him for one day already. Does the hon. Lady think that it is just possible that the Secretary of State might choose to exercise his or her discretion? Where and when local communities are getting on with it and producing high-quality local neighbourhood plans, that can carry on, but where people—as is often the case—are taking longer than it took to fight the second world war to produce a local plan of any kind at all, the Secretary of State should have the power to act, and that is what the Bill gives him or her.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting intervention, but those two issues need to be separated. The first question to be asked, arising from what I think was the first part of his intervention, is: do we want a planning system where the Secretary of State has discretion to say that site A in area B can have a development?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will in just a moment, after dealing with the second part. The second question is: do we want a plan-led system that operates within fairly tight timeframes, and does not go on for years and years before a plan is produced? The answer is that yes, of course we all want that. We set out proposals in the Lyons review that would greatly speed up the plan-making process. We are all saying that we want our system to be plan-led. The question for the hon. Gentleman is: how does that sit with the discretion for the Secretary of State? Does the Secretary of State then have to take note of the local plan, or does he not?
The Chair
Order. Before the hon. Lady replies to that point, I am allowing a fairly wide-ranging stand part-type debate on this, and so I will not call her to order. None the less, we should remind ourselves of the amendments which we are considering at the moment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Thank you, Mr Gray.
We know that the Government’s productivity plan indicated that the proposals for permission in principle would relate specifically to brownfield land, but the Bill itself—I think the Minister confirmed this on Thursday—places no such limitations upon it. Given the three methods that can now lead to permission in principle, this could be fairly widely applied. If it is going to be so widely applied, I hope that in his summing up the Minister will say what will happen to local communities, how they will have a say, and in particular what will happen if they are really unhappy about some of the details. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood was right to say that although people might have concerns or objections about building in a particular area, often these can be alleviated or ameliorated with some discussion about the type of materials to be used, or by more land being given over for environmental benefits or something of that nature. We are absolutely not clear how that happens in this case.
Peter Dowd
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is one of the most centralising pieces of planning legislation that this country has ever seen, dressed up as localism?
Peter Dowd
Indeed, it is almost Maoist. Does my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham agree that the reality is that local people would rather trust local decision makers than centralised diktats from Secretaries of State?
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and comes to the nub of what I want to ask the Minister. As requested by Wildlife and Countryside Link and many other organisations, he needs to confirm that the measures are not a contravention of article 6 of the Aarhus convention, which was ratified by the UK Government in 2005. I am sure the Minister knows, because he studies the convention over breakfast in the morning to ensure that all planning decisions that come to the Department do not contravene it, that the article sets out standards for public engagement, with particular regard to ensuring a strong local agenda. It is public engagement in its widest sense.
People are concerned that the Government proposals simply ditch the entire localism agenda and that they are instead adopting, as my hon. Friend just said, a highly centralist and top-down approach to how planning permission is granted.
Returning to public participation, because of the many ways in which people can get planning permission, the new system will be difficult to navigate not only for the public, who may want to have a say, but for developers, who will have to choose between three or four routes—we do not yet know how many—of getting planning permission. That seems unhelpful.
To emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said earlier, we learned from the Minister on Thursday that there are no time limits, so if a developer gets permission in principle through a mechanism about which we are not entirely clear at this point, it is possible that nothing will have happened 15 years down the line. What incentive does the system offer for a developer to build once it has permission in principle? It could simply do as developers do at the moment and hold on to pieces of land until the market improves. According to its market model, a developer may want to build 400 houses in a neighbouring borough and hold on to the piece of land until there is a downturn or something of that nature. The National Housing Federation wrote specifically about the proposal that it
“should be time-bound to incentivise delivery.”
We totally agree. Without time limits, we cannot see how the change will speed up planning and the delivery of new housing, which is what we all want. Planning is one thing, but getting houses built is what is really important. We just do not see how the measure will achieve that end without some timeframes.
I want to speak in support of paragraph (a) and also briefly on paragraph (b) proposed in amendment 285. It is incumbent on all of us, but in particular the Minister, given that it is his responsibility, to ensure that if additional burdens are placed on planning departments or a strong role is required from them to make these measures work, local authorities are given the resources to undertake that work. We know that they have had a 46% cut in funding in the last five years and that fees are not set at full cost recovery, so taxpayers make up the approximately £450 million needed to make planning departments function. A number of people have told us that this is a serious issue. It needs a serious response from the Government about how they are going to get the necessary resources into planning departments so that they can deal with planning well, respond quickly and easily to inquiries from the public and, critically, from developers, and turn round planning applications, technical details consent or anything that the new system requires of them both quickly and professionally. Without any measures in the Bill to tackle the lack of resources we cannot see how local authorities can respond in the way that the Minister expects.
Chris Philp
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will endeavour to be a model of brevity in opposing amendment 285—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is the most popular thing I have said so far.
I spent the five years prior to coming here running a business that financed residential development. I can tell the Committee that a grant of permission in principle is of great use to financing organisations in offering finance either to acquire land or to fund the professional fees associated with developing it. Even though not all the technical details will have been signed off at that stage, it will give both funders and the prospective developer a huge amount of confidence and a measure of certainty that a particular kind of development scheme can be brought forward. As such it will be extremely valuable and will undoubtedly expedite the process of development.
On the question of technical details raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, I think it is reasonable that they are dealt with later. If we insist on them being dealt with up front, there will be significant associated costs that may deter acquirers of land or developers from proceeding with a project. If the subsequent technical investigation uncovers problems such as bats, newts or Japanese knotweed, developments can be fine-tuned to address those issues in granting detailed consent.
The hon. Lady mentioned Roman forts. My father is an archaeologist and has encountered many Roman forts in his career. It is generally possible to reconfigure developments to avoid causing disruption: for example, my father was involved with a Roman fort in Dover that was going to be destroyed by a road, and they simply lifted up the road to go over the Roman remains. There are always ways of changing developments to resolve whatever problem subsequent technical investigations uncover. If the hon. Lady looks in the basement of many buildings in the City, she will see Roman remains that have been preserved.
Helen Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is making a helpful contribution. I am fully aware that in almost all circumstances it is possible to accommodate any constraints that might be found on a development site. The point is simply that there is a significant cost in doing that. If a developer is entirely unaware that the problem exists or even the potential that a problem exists, they may be biting off more than they can chew in seeking to bring forward that development.
Chris Philp
To that point I would say “Caveat emptor”—buyer beware. The developers should assess risk. If they choose to take the risk of not having done those investigations, that is their problem. Moreover, once they have got permission in principle, they will have the confidence to invest the money required to undertake those investigations.
Mr Bacon
It is not also true that, were a developer to find that he or she had bitten off more than they could chew, in the words of the hon. Lady, then with the development in place it would be easier to sell on to another person or developer who could take the project forward?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is quite right. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, who said earlier that paragraph (b) of amendment 285 is unreasonable in proposing that local authorities bear the cost of these investigations. That is quite wrong. The developer who stands to profit should bear the cost of those investigations. That is currently the case and I believe it would be the case under the Bill. For those reasons I strongly oppose amendment 285.
Mr Thomas
I very much enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Croydon South, but I want to take the Committee back to the issue that underpins some of the Government’s intentions in this part of the Bill: the price of land. The price of land in London is probably the single biggest constraint on housing development, and in particular helping small housing developers to enter the market. I therefore find myself torn on the question of permission in principle. I recognise that for some developers it is potentially a helpful tool, but I worry that it will exacerbate the rise in land values in certain places, notably London, where by any definition land prices are rising extremely fast. Amendment 284 would help to control—a little—the cost of land for development by setting out clearly the expectations of the community in its broader senses for a particular spot of land.
I raised in interventions the example of the College Road site in Harrow town centre; it is the site of the former post office, which has lain empty and earmarked in theory for development for 10 years and more. Part of the reason for the failure to develop that site is that the purchasers bought it when land values in Harrow were at their highest, they had unrealistic expectations of the value they might extract from the site, and as a result they finally had to sell the site off. If the requirements in amendment 284 had been on the statute book 10 years ago, that developer might not have rushed quite so quickly to buy the site, or, if it had bought the site, would at least have had some sense of the community’s expectations of what might be appropriate on that site. In that sense, I think it is a helpful amendment.
I come to the example of flooding I gave in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. I think in particular of a site in Keswick in the Lake district, which has been subject to particularly heavy flooding. I am sure the whole Committee sends its support to the people of Keswick, who have been so badly affected by flooding. I think of a small industrial estate in Keswick which houses a number of business and, indeed, a small museum, which might in future be a development site. However, it is close to the River Greta, which has once again flooded, despite some flood alleviation measures put in place since the last time it flooded. With amendment 284 in place, Sir James—
The Chair
Order. Unless the hon. Gentleman has heard something that I have not, it is just Mr Gray. One day, perhaps.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Is this not where paragraph (b) of amendment 285 would be extremely helpful? After the previous intervention, perhaps I should clarify that that paragraph would require the Secretary of State to ensure the provision of adequate funding to carry out the testing that is needed. That testing might be for the risk of flooding.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a good point and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Ministers have occasionally said that they want to help small and medium-sized house builders to increase their market share. Giving those developers much more certainty about what would and would not be acceptable on a site would surely reduce their costs over time and increase their chances of accessing sites that they can afford.
I would have thought that amendment 284 would appeal to the Government, given their enthusiasm for starter homes. Giving greater clarity to would-be developers about the proportion of starter homes required on a site as part of the suitable dwelling mix that a community might expect would surely both encourage the starter homes initiative that the Government want to push and give more certainty to developers.
Finally, I come to the question of the re-election of the hon. Member for South Norfolk. I paraphrase it in those terms because he prayed in aid with enthusiasm tall buildings in central London. I worry that his constituents might not share his love of tall buildings. I see their virtue in places such as Croydon; I am not quite so enthusiastic about the prospect of having them in central Harrow, and nor are my constituents. I have to confess that I do not know, but I suspect that the constituents of South Norfolk would not be too enthusiastic about the prospect of 20-storey blocks of flats being part of developments there or in the surrounding area.
Mr Bacon
I can resist no longer—the hon. Gentleman is such fun. I am not suggesting 20-storey blocks of flats in South Norfolk or anywhere else. I pointed out that the Cadogan estate in Chelsea has slightly higher blocks. If he visited the self-build project known as “Elf Freunde”—meaning 11 friends; it is a German footballing pun—in central Berlin that produced 11 four-storey terraced houses for €220,000 each, he would see what I am talking about.
Mr Thomas
Well, it is an important point, Mr Gray. I was not for a moment suggesting that the hon. Gentleman would be enthusiastic about a proposal for tall buildings, but there would be much less likelihood of his constituents being provoked by an application for an unnecessarily high development if the provisions in amendment 284 were on the statute book and would-be developers in South Norfolk knew that the community, South Norfolk Council and so on did not expect a development of more than, perhaps, 11 storeys, as I think he referred to in his Berlin example—
Mr Thomas
Oh, I beg his pardon: a development of four storeys, or even fewer. That would help to give some confidence to the community about potential developments. If the hon. Gentleman were to have the courage to resist the power of the Government Whips Office and back the amendment, I have no doubt that he would be smoothing the path a little to his re-election.
The hon. Gentleman provokes me to speak about self-build and custom housebuilding—
Mr Thomas
Indeed, Mr Gray, this is within the context of the amendment. Paragraph (b) of amendment 284 would give local authorities and broader communities in South Norfolk, Harrow and Dulwich and West Norwood the opportunity to send a signal that they want more self-built or custom built properties on a particular site. I hope that the hon. Member for South Norfolk would want to see a housing co-operative designated on many of the sites. Paragraph (b) offers the hope that some local authorities might want to do even more on custom and self-build. In that spirit, I support the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood.
Mr Jackson
Don’t say it with such enthusiasm, Mr Gray. It will not be that bad, and I think I will be brief.
The Chair
It is simply that the hon. Gentleman was not standing up, so I was questioning whether he was seeking to catch my eye. If he wants to speak in the debate, he ought to stand up and let me know that he wants to speak.
Mr Jackson
My Whip is giving me a strange look, so I will be quick. Before I start, I should parry the hon. Member for Bootle with hideous monstrous socialist carbuncles. I offer him the Chalkhill estate in Wembley and the Stonebridge estate in Harlesden as two great results of socialist architecture.
Moving on, the amendments are intellectually incoherent. They pray in aid a commitment to localism and local autonomy, but were they ever given effect they would be very prescriptive and present serious impediments to new house building. In fact, they would kill stone dead many marginal prospects for regeneration on brownfield sites across the country, and that is a serious concern.
Peter Dowd
It is a shame the hon. Gentleman mentioned brownfield sites, because I know one or two things about them, certainly in terms of my constituency. He talks about the amendment killing marginal developments, but some of the sites are so contaminated that the developments should be killed. The contamination is dreadful. The concern I have, which is missed out of these measures and I would like the Minister to comment on, is the testing done on those sites, which can be incredibly dangerous. Those tests should be done and should be codified.
Mr Jackson
In fairness, I do not know the hon. Gentleman’s constituency as well as he does, but I have visited Bootle and seen the challenges with regeneration across Merseyside, with Scotland Road, Rock Ferry, Tranmere and other parts of Wirral. Looking at the whole country, there are marginal regeneration cases that have resulted in good-quality housing.
My second criticism of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood is that there is no context. The context is that there are structure plans and local development plans that have gone through the proper processes of public engagement and formal consultation, and those plans are subject to the strictures imposed in primary legislation, including the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A local planning authority should come to a settled view on what it wants to do with its land. The clue is in the name; the measure is a permissive capacity for the Secretary of State to intervene in extremis where a local authority has not brought forward appropriate land use plans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said so eloquently, to put these strict impediments on the face of the Bill would kill stone dead attempts to build more homes and to develop marginal units.
On the points made by the hon. Member for City of Durham, I was concerned by land banking so I looked at the Local Government Association figures from 2012. When one looks below the surface at the facts, the No. 1 factor in this was the capacity and expertise of the planning departments. If a legal duty is imposed on those planning officers to spend significant amounts of public money, both in consultation and viability assessments for these units, it would reduce the capacity of those local planning authorities to give permission. We need to look at the Secretary of State’s plans in that context.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that permission in principle should be given without adequate testing of those sites being carried out? We heard from the Minister on Thursday that it does not seem to be possible to remove permission in principle if subsequently a technical detail means that the development should not go ahead.
Mr Jackson
We already have a vast array of assessments and objective criteria by which we measure developments. We have the local plans, structure plans, site location plans and viability assessments. We have vacant building credit, for instance, which is now in court as the result of a legal case. We have plenty of opportunities for engagement, even without talking about neighbourhood plans. The idea that the first base of the Secretary of State is to intervene straightaway is nonsense.
Finally, it ill behoves being lectured on localism by a party responsible for home information packs, eco-towns and the disaster of regional special strategy with Prescott’s density and parking targets, which gave rise to some of the worst-quality housing we have seen in this country since the war.
Brandon Lewis
It has been enlightening to have effectively a second clause stand part debate on clause 102. The amendments clearly relate to clause 102, so I will respond to them in that context.
I was particularly taken by my hon. Friend’s comments about the Roman forts. I would encourage his father to visit the Caister Roman fort to see how we do it in Great Yarmouth and give us some views on how to get some development around that.
I was amused by the comments of the hon. Member for Bootle about a centralist approach, which I assume were tongue-in-cheek. In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough perfectly summed up what the amendments do. Having been a councillor for 11 years under a Labour Government, I know what centralism in local authority planning terms feels like.
With the best will in the world, the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood miss a key point, which is that permission in principle is driven locally—planning permission in principle will come through decisions made by local people in their local communities. That is a fundamental fact. I know the hon. Lady was not here when we touched on that at the end of last week.
Amendment 285 would require the Secretary of State to set out in regulations that sufficient testing of a site must take place before permission in principle is granted. The regulations also set out that adequate funding is provided to carry that out. I will come back to that in detail in a moment.
I have two fundamental concerns about amendment 285. First, prescribing the particulars to be addressed when granting permission in principle builds unhelpful rigidity into the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South made the point very well. We have been clear that we consider the particulars to be granted permission in principle should be use, location and amount of development. The approach taken in the Bill is a prudent, balanced one that allows for the particulars to be set out in secondary legislation. It gives us the flexibility to ensure that permission in principle works as intended.
My second concern is the detailed nature of the issues that amendment 284 requires to be fully addressed at the permission in principle stage. We have been clear from the very beginning that, in order for the measures to deliver real change in unlocking sites and avoiding unnecessary costs, permission in principle should give up-front certainty on the core matters underpinning the basic suitability of a site, namely its use, location and amount of development, and allow matters of detail to be agreed subsequently, as we have outlined before.
Amendment 284 proposes that matters of detail, such as density, affordable housing provision, community and social infrastructure requirements, be settled at the permission in principle stage. Let me be clear that those are matters that should be addressed before development is allowed to proceed, and the local planning authority may well consider them when deciding whether to grant permission in principle. However, if we were to require those to be covered by permission in principle, far more detailed information and analysis would be required, which would entirely negate the value of the Government’s measures and effectively duplicate the existing outline planning application process. Matters such as affordable housing contribution and community infrastructure provision will be agreed and negotiated at the technical detail stage, in line with local and national policy.
On amendment 285, clause 102 will enable permission in principle to be granted when a site is allocated in qualifying documents. The Secretary of State will prescribe a qualifying document only if it has been through a suitably robust process, including public consultation and a site assessment. We intend to set out in secondary legislation that the qualifying documents will be local plans, neighbourhood plans and the brownfield register. Before allocating a site in a local plan, as I am sure Members will appreciate, local authorities already go through a detailed site investigation and assessment process as part of their strategic housing land availability assessment.
In the neighbourhood planning context, the neighbourhood planning qualifying body should carry out an appraisal of options and an assessment of individual sites if it intends to allocate sites for development. Any such appraisals carried out by qualifying bodies are subject to scrutiny by both the local planning authority and an independent examiner. Neighbourhood plans also go through a full referendum of the local community. That is absolute local power in the hands of local people—true localism.
Therefore, extremely robust testing already exists in plan-making processes, and the whole purpose of the permission in principle model is to draw on that and make the best use of all the local effort, detailed work and resource at the plan-making stage, so that we get back to what we should be aiming for, which is a plan-led system. As the Government’s measures propose to utilise existing plan-making processes, we do not anticipate additional burdens on local authorities.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Can the Minister deal with the point about the nature of qualifying documents? People will have been involved in a process to put local plans in place, and in a consultation system, but they will not have understood that that will lead to permission in principle, because it was not there when they were involved in the previous process. Will the measures apply to plans developed from now on, or plans already in existence?
Brandon Lewis
Local people go through the process in the full knowledge that they are looking to allocate land. One frustration expressed by areas—while travelling around the country, I have spoken to people in a lot of areas that have done both local and neighbourhood plans—is that they go through all that work and must then effectively do it all again for every individual planning application, which defeats the object of the work that they have done in the first place. Our proposals will back up the work that they have done.
I finish on this point. On the brownfield register, I can reassure the hon. Lady that we intend to require local planning authorities to assess the sites that they propose to put on local registers against criteria to be specified in regulations. That will ensure that the sites are suitable for housing. We will shortly consult on our proposed criteria. We expect them to assess whether sites are available and capable of being redeveloped for housing, and whether development is viable. Local planning authorities already take such matters into account when assessing potential sites in their strategic land availability assessments. Local authority decisions will have regard to the national planning policy framework and to local plans. Our intention is that local authorities will draw on existing strategic housing land availability assessment processes as much as possible to identify and test the suitability of sites for inclusion on the brownfield register.
We also have a rigorous new burdens assessment process in our Department to ensure that local planning authorities receive the relevant resources to meet their statutory obligations. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendments.
Helen Hayes
I thank the Minister for that explanation. It is good to hear proposals regarding some of the detail that might be included in the requirements for the brownfield register and the assessment process.
I remain unclear about the status of the proposed third route to gaining permission in principle—direct application to the local authority. I am unclear whether it might be possible to apply to a local authority for permission in principle for a site that is not on the brownfield register or in one of the other qualifying documents. If that is the case, what requirements for assessment and consultation will there be?
I want briefly to address Government Members’ comments about paragraph (b) in amendment 285. That proposal does not necessarily imply that costs should be borne by the taxpayer; it simply says that the Secretary of State should make provision for regulations that ensure there is adequate funding. Funding for local authority development management functions is an important issue, and we will return to it in the debates on some of the new clauses.
Points were made about environmental and other regulations, and I want the processes and guidance around permission in principle clarified. The hon. Member for South Ribble referred to her own experience, and I am sure that, as a developer, she was experienced and responsible in the projects she undertook. However, I have come across many developers in my constituency who have taken on sites, even under the current system, without knowing some of the constraints in terms of what lay under the ground or, sometimes, the demolition of the buildings on the site. Constraints exist anyway, and it is important that they are acknowledged up front in permission in principle. Unless they are, permission in principle becomes the emperor’s new clothes of the planning system—a piece of paper that purports to give someone permission, but which, when we delve down into the layers of detail and the constraints, offers only short-term certainty, leading to a whole lot of expense and heartache in the long term.
These were probing amendments, and I would like to return to this issue on Report, when we may have seen further detail from the Government. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
New clause 19—Granting of planning permission: change of use to residential use—
“After section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert—
‘58A Granting of planning permission: change of use to residential use
(1) efore planning permission is granted under section 58(1) for change of use of a building to residential use as dwellinghouses, the body considering granting planning permission must consider the impact of noise and other factors from buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year in the vicinity which would affect the amenity and enjoyment of the residents of the dwellinghouses.
(2) Where planning permission is granted under section 58(1) for change of use of a building to residential use as dwellinghouses, the permission must include conditions imposed on the persons granted planning permission in respect of the building changing use to—
(a) eliminate noise between the hours of 10pm and 6am from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before the permission is given; and
(b) counteract any other impact seriously impairing the amenity and enjoyment of the residents and prospective residents of the dwellinghouses arising from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before the permission is given.’”
This new Clause would ensure that residents of buildings converted to residential use are protected from factors, particularly noise, affecting their amenity and enjoyment. Such measures shall be the responsibility of the agent of the change of the permission.
New clause 20—Permitted development: change of use to residential use—
“Where the Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 59, 60, 61, 74 or 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, makes a General Permitted Development in respect of change of use to residential use as dwellinghouses, the change must first be subject to prior approval in respect of the impact of the amenity and enjoyment of the prospective residents of the dwellinghouses arising from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before.”
This new Clause would ensure that residents of buildings converted to residential use are protected from factors, particularly noise, affecting their amenity and enjoyment when buildings are converted to residential by virtue of a General Permitted Development order. Such measures shall be the responsibility of the agent of the change of the permission.
I should make it plain to the Committee that I have allowed a fairly extensive, Second Reading-type debate on the content of the clause, so anyone who wishes to make any remarks should focus those on the two new clauses.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I rise to discuss one of my passions: permitted development and what we do to try to overturn the changes the Government have made to permitted development rights. The new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), myself and other hon. Members are extremely interesting and important. They seek to draw to the Minister’s attention a problem that has arisen from the granting of permitted development, with the conversion of office accommodation into residential accommodation.
To try to crystallise where we want to get to with the new clauses, let me explain what often happens under the change of use procedure, as property moves from office to residential. The new residential block, which might be in a commercial or retail area, could have a music venue next to it. That venue could have been there for many years, not causing a problem to anyone, but then it finds a residential block next to it and many people who are unhappy about the noise.
The Chair
Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Lady, who has had ample time to expand on her point, but I think that she has probably made the point in general. Article 4 directions do not actually come within the finer points of the new clauses that we are considering. I suspect that she may be coming towards the end of her remarks.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am indeed, Mr Gray—absolutely. The point I was making about article 4 decisions is that they had been suggested as a way of addressing the issue, but in practice councils are saying that article 4 decisions are not a suitable mechanism to help them do that, because it is often too difficult to get an article 4 decision and to get it in the areas affected. Mr Gray, you are absolutely right.
I think that this is an important issue for the Committee to consider. There is an increasing volume of permitted development that is seeking to convert office property to residential property, so the issue is likely to grow and the problem will be exacerbated in future if the Government do not take some action.
I hope that we will hear from the Minister about how he might seek to work with the Mayor—
Dr Blackman-Woods
—and with other local authority officers about how to address these issues.
Mr Thomas
I rise to support these new clauses. To me, they seem to make eminent sense. They are not an over-the-top provision and they are not creating a particularly onerous regulatory burden. However, they are seeking to re-establish a balance between, on the one side, the need and the appetite for new housing that all Committee members report and, on the other side, the need to maintain centres of cultural activity.
My hon. Friend has just set out some of the rationale for these amendments. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to what motivates my support for the new clauses. I am motivated in part by the experience of one of the grassroots venues that has closed in my constituency. The Rayners pub used to host jazz and ska nights on a regular basis, and when it closed there was a long campaign to stop it being earmarked for development. The campaign was led by an excellent local resident, Bill Ashton, who was then the conductor for the National Youth Jazz Orchestra. He was rightly concerned to protect a local music venue, and he argued that very few such venues in outer London hosted jazz and ska nights. My worry is that, without the amendments, the environmental health concerns that my hon. Friend alluded to will continue to increase the pressure on licensing authorities to take away licences for music venues.
The Trinity pub in my constituency is still very much going on. It has two floors and the upper floor often hosts small bands, or bands that have not yet made it. There are many offices within the vicinity of that pub. It is an excellent pub—Labour-supporting, which is an additional benefit that the Trinity brings—and I would not want to see it forced to stop allowing performances by local and other bands as a result of the pressure that may or may not come from those who move into homes where there were once offices.
Mr Thomas
Again, I gently encourage the hon. Gentleman not to go for a long liquid lunch, but to be back promptly to be able to hear the Minister when he declaims on this subject. I am glad he is an enthusiast for the National Youth Jazz Orchestra, but it is not only jazz that might be affected in future; a host of other genres might also be affected. I hope the hon. Member for South Norfolk is not in a parochial phase, but that he might be willing to recognise that the idea of a European city of culture bid from outer London—something for which I have campaigned for some time—might benefit from the provisions in the amendment. The pressure on music venues to close might not be there and there would be opportunities for more parts of our great capital city to benefit from the European city of culture and provide an additional range of cultural activity for people in the area.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham rightly dwelt on the Mayor of London’s music venue taskforce. I am not a huge fan of the current Mayor of London, but I give him credit when it is due on occasion. His taskforce has shone a spotlight on the closure of grassroots venues—a 35% decline, as my hon. Friend said, in the past eight years in London. That is deeply worrying and ought to be a wake-up call for us all, not only in this Committee but across London, to see what else we can do to make sure there is not pressure to lose such venues.
My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the fact that London has borne the brunt of the closure of music venues, but it is not only in London where music venues have closed; Birmingham and Manchester have seen small music venues closing, as have Edinburgh and Glasgow—of course, Scotland is outwith the scope of the Bill—and Bristol, Plymouth, Newport and Swindon have all seen important local music venues closing. We must do more to stop such local venues closing in future.
As my hon. Friend has alluded to, it is clear that there is insufficient guidance for our planning authorities to stop the closure of music venues.
Housing and Planning Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that we are considering the following:
New clause 19—Granting of planning permission: change of use to residential use—
“After section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert—
‘58A Granting of planning permission: change of use to residential use
(1) Before planning permission is granted under section 58(1) for change of use of a building to residential use as dwellinghouses, the body considering granting planning permission must consider the impact of noise and other factors from buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year in the vicinity which would affect the amenity and enjoyment of the residents of the dwellinghouses.
(2) Where planning permission is granted under section 58(1) for change of use of a building to residential use as dwellinghouses, the permission must include conditions imposed on the persons granted planning permission in respect of the building changing use to—
(a) eliminate noise between the hours of 10pm and 6am from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before the permission is given; and
(b) counteract any other impact seriously impairing the amenity and enjoyment of the residents and prospective residents of the dwellinghouses arising from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before the permission is given.’”
This new Clause would ensure that residents of buildings converted to residential use are protected from factors, particularly noise, affecting their amenity and enjoyment. Such measures shall be the responsibility of the agent of the change of the permission.
New clause 20—Permitted development: change of use to residential use—
“Where the Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 59, 60, 61, 74 or 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, makes a General Permitted Development in respect of change of use to residential use as dwellinghouses, the change must first be subject to prior approval in respect of the impact of the amenity and enjoyment of the prospective residents of the dwellinghouses arising from neighbouring buildings which have been in continuous and unchanged use for at least a year before.”
This new Clause would ensure that residents of buildings converted to residential use are protected from factors, particularly noise, affecting their amenity and enjoyment when buildings are converted to residential by virtue of a General Permitted Development order. Such measures shall be the responsibility of the agent of the change of the permission.
When we broke for lunch we were discussing clause 104 stand part, albeit with an injunction to focus on new clauses 19 and 20, having had a reasonably full debate on the clause previously. Mr Thomas was on his feet.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to resume where I left off, Mr Gray. I hope that Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for South Norfolk, have had a good lunch and continue to look forward with enthusiasm to the Minister’s response to the new clauses, not least out of concern for and interest in jazz at small venues, but also out of more general interest in the concerns of small music venues that may be at risk.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Mr Gray, for the record I feel I should point out that I have had no lunch at all. The time I had allocated for lunch was taken up with that vote we have just had and I just managed to eat a banana on the way up here.
Mr Thomas
The hon. Gentleman has, I am sure, secured the sympathy of the whole Committee. Anyone reading the extracts from Hansard of this section of the debate will be instantly sympathetic.
As well as paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham for the way she introduced this debate, I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dagher), who has championed the new clauses and worked with a number of organisations within the music industry concerned about the impact of planning legislation on music venues. It is in part through his work, as well as the work of the industry itself, that the idea of trying to write into legislation the principle of an agent for change concept being established in planning law has come to fruition. The industry points to a number of examples where this principle is already written into law. I am told it has been particularly successful in Melbourne in Victoria, Australia, and I think it is well worth looking at in the British context, not least given the sharp decline in music venues in London.
On Thursday evening we will all go back and Government Members will celebrate the fact that the legislation has got through its Committee stage and that they have successfully resisted any temptation to engage with the Bill in a critical way. They might want to go out on the town to celebrate, and look for a music venue. Perhaps the hon. Member for Peterborough will want to go out to see an ABBA tribute band—he has the look of someone who likes that type of music—
The Chair
Order. Before lunch we had a reasonably expansive debate on this subject. I remind the Committee that we are discussing two new clauses which discuss the way in which offices may or may not be converted into dwellinghouses and the effect that may have on the music industry. That is not an opportunity for an extensive discussion about the music industry and the various kinds of music we might enjoy. We have to focus entirely on the two new clauses, leaving aside wider discussion of the music industry.
Mr Thomas
I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Gray, for your guidance, which further confirms my view that a knighthood should be pressing for you.
My point is simply that there are many forms of music outwith those that attract large crowds that are performed in small music venues; those venues are under threat and we should do more to protect them. New clauses 19 and 20 wold give us the opportunity to make some progress in offering that kind of protection. The Minister for Housing and Planning is perhaps a fan of Duran Duran, again not necessarily a band that would perform—
The Chair
Order. In the event that the two new clauses became part of the Bill, it would then of course become possible to encourage all kinds of music and all kinds of other things that might create noise. This is not an opportunity for those kinds of discussion. We must focus our attentions entirely on the text of new clauses 19 and 20.
Mr Thomas
Again, Mr Gray, I welcome that guidance.
The particular benefit of new clause 19 is to place on anyone who wants to convert offices to other buildings in an area with a music venue nearby the duty to make clear the potential impact of the noise from that music venue. It is in that spirit that new clauses 19 and 20 are tabled—to bring the agent for change principle into UK law. They are entirely sensible provisions, and with that I urge the Committee to support new clauses 19 and 20.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I will be brief. I want simply to point out that one of the key problems with the Government’s extension of the permitted development rights is that they allow change to happen without consideration of local economic impacts.
We know that the cumulative loss of employment space as a consequence of permitted developments rights is a significant concern across London. We also know that there are no safeguards on the quality or the suitability of development. That is illustrated by the potential loss of music venues, which play an important cultural and community role in the locations in which they are situated. This is yet another example of the ways in which the Government are seeking to achieve short-term progress at the expense of longer-term outcomes and the quality and character of our neighbourhoods. I therefore very much support the new clauses.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
The aim of new clauses 19 and 20 is effectively twofold: first, to ensure that, where planning permission is granted for change of use to a residential use, the new residents’ amenity is protected; and secondly, to require that the cost of any mitigation measures needed to protect residents’ amenity, particularly against noise generated, is borne by the developer. I believe that the new clauses are unnecessary. They will impose inflexible requirements on local authorities and others where there are already appropriate protections to address these issues. One of my hon. Friends made that point this morning in our extensive debate.
In fact, the national planning policy framework itself incorporates the agent of change principle. It makes clear that businesses that want to develop should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of nearby changes to land use. Our thriving city centres are successful because they contain a vibrant and diverse mix of uses. It is therefore inevitable that modern city centre living will be co-located alongside other commercial and, as we heard, leisure uses. That is what makes our cities such dynamic places to live, work and, indeed, play.
In the case of planning permission granted by local planning authorities, they must decide the applications in accordance with the local plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Consideration of amenity impacts such as noise and disturbance is already a well established part of decision making, and the NPPF is a material consideration. National planning policy already establishes the principle that local authorities should approve applications for change of use from commercial to residential where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area—one thing that I hope we all agree on is the need for extra housing.
The framework also includes strong protections against pollution. It makes it clear that the planning system should prevent new and existing development from being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of pollution, including noise. The effects, including cumulative effects of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. In addition, planning decisions should aim to avoid noise which gives rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.
The framework goes further by making it clear that existing businesses that want to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land use since they were established. The planning guidance supporting the framework is clear that the potential effect of the location of a new residential development close to an existing business that gives rise to noise should be carefully considered. The guidance underlines planning’s contribution to avoiding future complaints and risks to local businesses from resulting enforcement action. To avoid such situations, local councils are encouraged to consider appropriate mitigation, including designing the new development to reduce the impact of noise in the local environment and optimising the sound insulation provided by the building envelope.
I am keen to look further at this matter. I have been working with my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, who is arranging for me to sit down and meet some of the music organisations that were mentioned this morning. If a business is working and a nearby building converts to residential housing, that is a good thing; we want more housing. It would be entirely wrong of the people who moved into the residential housing to complain about the business that existed before the residential housing was there. When I was the Minister with responsibility for pubs, I came across examples of residents who complained about a pub that had been there for 150 years two weeks after moving in next door. We need to ensure that those businesses are protected.
In December 2014, we made amendments to the planning guidance to underline planning’s contribution to protecting music venues, but I am interested in looking further at that issue. As I said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy has arranged for me to meet with those organisations shortly.
Mr Thomas
The Minister has virtually answered my question. I was going to ask whether he would meet with a delegation, and he has said that he will. Will he commit telling us before Report stage whether he is minded to do anything else in planning law to help the music industry, which is worried about the future of some venues?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman is right that I will meet with those organisations. My hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, who has responsibility for the creative arts, has arranged for me to sit down and meet with them. If we were to do anything in the Bill, I would make Members aware of that before Report stage. The new clauses are not needed because the planning powers are already there; we just have to make sure they are properly used, but I will talk to the industry about that before we go forward.
With that caveat, the approach set out in the Bill provides flexibility and enables local planning authorities to protect new residents’ amenity, particularly from the impact of noise, while ensuring that we protect established businesses from disruption to their operations. Local authorities, when they look at such situations and organisations, look at what is said in this House. The debate we have had today will very much inform their decisions.
On new clause 20, permitted development rights for change of use play an important role in the planning system. They provide flexibility, reduce bureaucracy and allow the best use to be made of existing buildings. In 2014-15, they provided 8,000 much needed new homes, particularly in our capital city. In introducing permitted development rights, the Secretary of State can make provision for local authorities to approve measures relating to the impact on local amenity, including from noise, where development is permitted for a change of use.
The hon. Member for City of Durham touched on the article 4 situation. I gently say to her that she should challenge local authorities that say it is difficult to use, because there is no evidence to back that up claim. The article 4 process is straightforward and simple. Local authorities should look at other authorities that have used it so they can use it appropriately and correctly. More broadly, if there are genuine concerns about the impact of permitted development rights on new residents’ amenity, including noise impacts, local councils have the ability to bring forward an article 4 direction. Article 4, in and of itself, does not prevent development; it requires the planning application to be considered before a building can be converted. It is an immensely powerful tool for local authorities to use. They just need to ensure they are using it appropriately and in a focused way.
The licensing process also provides an adjudication mechanism between local residents and licensed premises by which practical measures can be introduced to control and mitigate noise. Statutory guidance advises that licensing authorities should be aware of the need to avoid inappropriate or disproportionate measures that could deter events that are valuable to the community. We can all think of events in our own constituencies, such as live music, that bring the community together and are a valuable source of community spirit. I do not consider the new clauses necessary and I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw them.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Probably nothing crystallises better the different approaches of the Opposition and the Government than permitted development. We are arguing for a proper system of planning approval that looks at all the issues likely to arise from a particular development, and for mitigation if planning is approved, or for planning to simply not be approved. The previous planning Minister said he was introducing a degree of chaos into the system. We have ended up with a permitted development system, a prior approval system and an article 4 direction, but none of those elements adds up to a planning system that can control the sort of problems we are talking about.
We at least agree across the Committee on our analysis of the problem: these developments are leading to complaints from residents about noise. I heard what the Minister said about meeting the groups involved. Clearly, this is a problem; if it was not, the Mayor would not have set up a taskforce and the music industry would not be saying it is a real problem. I hear what the Minister says about meeting representatives of the industry and others to see if something can be done to improve the current unsatisfactory situation for residents and the music industry. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
The Chair
The new clauses will be considered later on in our proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 104 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 105
Planning applications that may be made directly to Secretary of State
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 286, in clause 105, page 49, line 4, at end insert—
“(1) In section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for ‘Secretary of State’ substitute “in respect of land in Greater London by the Mayor of London and in respect of land in England outside of Greater London by the Secretary of State” except in subsection (1)(a).
(1A) In section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (when application may be made directly to in respect of land in Greater London the Mayor of London and in respect of land in England outside of Greater London to the Secretary of State), in subsection (1), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—
“(a) the local planning authority concerned is designated by the Secretary of State for applications of a description specified in the designation;
(b) the application falls within that description.””
This amendment would provide for applications in respect of land in Greater London to be made directly to the Mayor of London and to the Secretary of State for land elsewhere in England.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr Gray. My pleasure is increased by the fact that, from listening to your strictures in this Committee, I know that you, like me, are a fan of the Radio 4 show “Just a Minute”—[Interruption.] My Whip has just asked how long my speech is going to be. Unlike the hon. Member for Harrow West, who is leaving, and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who discussed Whips Offices and courage, I always remember the old adage, “Bravery and courage are a thin line, and stupidity is following close behind.”
I move amendment 286 in the spirit in which I moved amendment 240 on Thursday afternoon. I was grateful for the attention and comments of a number of Committee members on that amendment, and therefore I shall detain the Committee only briefly.
Although the Mayor has mainly strategic powers with regard to London, he has decision-making powers on developments of strategic importance and can therefore take over an application and act as a local planning authority. Although, quite rightly, he has only used that power sparingly, it exists. Recognising both the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Localism Act 2011, I hope the Minister will agree that the Bill should recognise that while applications outside London can be made directly to the Secretary of State, applications of strategic importance inside London can be made to the Mayor. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me some comfort and agree that this is a tidying-up amendment.
Brandon Lewis
That is a challenge for me, Mr Gray. I will keep an eye on the clock to see if we can improve on the two and a half hours we have spent on one clause thus far today.
Brandon Lewis
I will endeavour to take the hon. Lady’s comments on board.
If the amendment were accepted, applications for major and potentially for very minor developments—right down to applications for one house—in underperforming London boroughs could be submitted directly to the Mayor. For a typical London borough, if applicants chose to apply directly to the Mayor, that could run to literally hundreds of applications per year. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and others would agree that that would not fit in with the important role of the Mayor as a strategic decision maker.
It is right that the Mayor of London has that important role in strategic decisions affecting the capital. He already has the power to decide to call in applications of potential strategic importance—for example, when more than 150 dwellings are proposed. We are taking steps in the Bill for the Mayor to set his own thresholds in high-growth areas, through the London plan. The clause will allow us to extend our successful designation process to assess performance in applications for non-major developments. The amendment has the potential to significantly change the Mayor’s role and go beyond providing that vital strategic direction in decision making across the capital. It would also have implications for the performance regime in and of itself. Planning applicants might expect the Mayor to be part of the safeguards, rather than the decision maker on how quickly their applications should be determined. I will continue to look at this issue and to engage with my hon. Friend, but at this stage I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Stephen Hammond
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister had to say. The thrust of the amendment was to ensure that applications of strategic importance—clearly not minimal or de minimis applications—could be made directly to the Mayor. I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance that he is prepared to continue to consider the issue, because it is important that the potential strategic importance of applications is considered. Given his words of comfort, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 107
Development consent for projects that involve housing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The clause will enable some housing developments to be determined under the national infrastructure planning regime, if they are part of a larger mixed development that includes infrastructure. On the face of it, we have no objection to that in principle, but we are concerned about how the process for granting approval is going to work in practice. It brings me back to the discussions we were having this morning about whether there are going to be three or four ways in which applications for housing can be determined. We have come to an additional way, so perhaps we are now on the fifth way for applicants to get planning permission for new housing.
A number of organisations, including the National Infrastructure Planning Association, have written to the Committee to say that there is a need for greater clarity in the Government’s guidance. It is very welcome that we received the briefing note for the guidance relating to clause 107 before we came on to debate it. I do not know who is responsible for that, but they should be commended, because it is clearly much better that we get the documents that are relevant to a clause before we debate it, rather than afterwards, which has typically been the case with the Bill so far.
The briefing note states that the clause will
“minimise regulation and provide maximum flexibility”
and that
“more detailed issues relating to the inclusion of housing will be covered in guidance.”
It goes on to tell us about some of those issues, which include
“the types of infrastructure that housing could be included with; the two circumstances in which housing… might be built…; the location of housing in relation to the infrastructure; the assessment of housing proposals; and how the housing element of any nationally significant infrastructure project will be treated at each stage of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process and the considerations that will need to be taken into account by developers.”
I was reassured when I read that. I thought, “Good. We’re not exactly clear what the process will be and we’re not entirely sure what sorts of infrastructure projects it will relate to, but all we have to do is be patient and wait for the guidance, which will tell us all those things.” Unfortunately, the draft guidance does not do that job.
Taking the point about the infrastructure to which housing can be attached, the guidance just says:
“The Government does not propose to place limits on the categories of infrastructure project that may include housing.”
We are technically none the wiser and just have to assume that it could be any sort of infrastructure in almost any circumstances. Paragraph 20 outlines some of the restrictions that will be placed on the building of housing in certain areas and provides four examples, but it is unclear whether they are examples or the totality. The restrictions include
“sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest;”
That is a good thing. Also included are:
“land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority);”—
again, we very much welcome that—
“designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.”
Is that a definitive list or are they examples? The guidance is not clear whether they are the sorts of things that local authorities should take into account or whether they are the only things. Given the potentially extensive application of the clause, it is important that we get that information.
I will not detain the Committee any further on the guidance except to say to the Minister that I have been through it and cannot see where it sets out in detail how housing applications will be considered at each stage of the national infrastructure process. Will they have a particular designation, or will they just be considered as part of the overall scheme? Some clarification from the Minister would be extremely helpful.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray. I will be relatively brief, but I speak to raise concerns about clause 107 with a particular example from my constituency in mind. The Mayor of London and Transport for London are consulting on a nationally significant infrastructure project, the Silvertown tunnel, which is a road tunnel linking the Greenwich peninsula to Silvertown Way north of the river. It is a locally contentious proposal for a variety of reasons, but primarily due to its impact on the local road network and already dire air quality.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, I see nothing wrong with the principle of allowing housing to be built and this mechanism to be used if it is functionally linked to the infrastructure project under consideration. However, I have particular concerns about new subsection (4B)(b) which states:
“‘Related housing development’ means development which… is on the same site as, or is next to or close”.
I hope that the Minister can reassure me on this. I am concerned that in an infrastructure project such as that road tunnel, where I can see no housing that is functionally linked, this clause could allow for housing to be built in a different part of the borough, bypassing local accountability and any community influence, simply because there is a nationally significant infrastructure project in the vicinity and we have no idea what that means. I press the Minister to reassure me about what
“or is next to or close to”
might mean and whether any guidance will be forthcoming, or, if not, whether he will consider clarifying that part of the Bill. It is important that the housing that might be delivered through this mechanism is functionally, or more directly, linked to the infrastructure we are discussing than it might otherwise be.
Brandon Lewis
The clause has the effect of allowing the Secretary of State to grant development consent for housing that is related to a nationally significant infrastructure project. We think it is important that we change things for national infrastructure projects so that there is an ability to have related housing linked in. I will answer the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich more directly in a moment. I appreciate that he has asked probing questions, and I am glad that he and the hon. Member for City of Durham made those points because, despite all that Opposition Members say about wanting more housing, at every stage of the Bill, they seem to making arguments against anything that will deliver more housing.
The Planning Act 2008 does not permit any consent for housing. That means that, when a developer wants to include housing as part of a nationally significant infrastructure project, they must make a separate application for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That is inefficient, because obtaining separate consent under a separate regime adds time and cost to developers.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made a point about community influence. It might be worth his looking at how the national infrastructure planning framework actually works, because, in that, local communities have a say in any proposals for their area. The applicants are required to engage with and consult local communities from the outset. Local authorities have a role in assessing the adequacy of that consultation. I go further, in that clause 107 amends section 115 of the Planning Act 2008, to add “related housing development” to the types of development for which the Secretary of State can grant development consent. Related housing development is defined in the amended section 115. I am happy to be clear on the Floor of the Committee that it is about related housing development.
The notes to which the hon. Lady the Member for the City of Durham referred use the word “includes”, so they are not exhaustive, but just a few examples. If enacted, the clause will allow development consent to be granted for housing where it is on the same site or close to a nationally significant infrastructure project or is otherwise associated with it. I refer hon. Members back to my quote from a few moments ago.
We propose to set out in more detail matters, such as the maximum amount of housing that may be consented, the location of housing and how applications that include housing will be assessed, in guidance. The clause itself requires the Secretary of State to take account of any matters set out in guidance when deciding an application for development consent. This reform will improve the nationally significant infrastructure planning process, by creating the opportunity for developers—bearing in mind that, on average, there are only 15 applications a year—to benefit from a more efficient process for these kinds of applications for housing that is relevant, appropriate or related to an national infrastructure project.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I rise to emphasise to the Committee the point I made at the beginning of our discussion on the clause. To be clear, we are not objecting to the principle of having housing attached to large-scale infrastructure projects. We simply wanted to question the Minister on some of the details of the guidance. In scrutinising the Bill, it is important that we ask questions about whether the scheme will work in practice.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 107 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 108
Designation of urban development areas: procedure
Brandon Lewis
I beg to move amendment 183, in clause 108, page 51, line 16, after “subsection (1)” insert
“in relation to land in England”.
This amendment would state that the consultation requirement inserted into section 134 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 by clause 108(2) would only apply in relation to an order creating an urban development area in England.
Brandon Lewis
Amendments 183 and 184 make it clear that the duty to consult when designating land as an urban development area or establishing an urban development corporation will apply in England only, as planning policy in this respect is devolved. These are minor, technical amendments.
Amendment 183 agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 109
Establishment of urban development corporations: procedure
Amendment made: 184, in clause 109, page 52, line 2, after “section” insert
“in relation to an urban development area in England”.—(Brandon Lewis.)
This amendment would state that the consultation requirement inserted into section 135 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 by clause 109(2) would only apply in relation to an order establishing a corporation for an urban development area in England.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 236, in clause 109, page 52, line 24, at end insert—
“(4) Section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 [objects and general powers] is amended as follows.
(5) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) Corporations under this Act must contribute the long-term sustainable development and place making of the new community.
(2B) Under this Act sustainable development and place making means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs and in achieving sustainable development and place making, development corporations should—
(a) positively identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;
(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;
(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;
(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;
(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(f) positively promote high quality and inclusive design;
(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and
(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.’
(6) Section 4 of the New Towns Act 1981 [The objects and general powers of Development Corporations] is amended as follows.
(7) For subsection (1) substitute—
‘(1) The objects of a development corporation established for the purpose of a new town or Garden City shall be to secure the physical laying out of infrastructure and the long-term sustainable development and place making of the new community.
(1A) Under this Act sustainable development and place making means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs and in achieving sustainable development, development corporations should—
(a) positively identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;
(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;
(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;
(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;
(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(f) positively promote high quality and inclusive design;
(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and
(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.’”
This amendment would insert place-making objectives for both UDC’s in Local Government Act 1980 and for New Town Development Corporations in the New Towns Act 1981 and sets out a high quality purpose for making the development of scale growth.
The clause relates to the procedure for establishing urban development corporations. The purpose of amendment 236 is to try to ensure that if new developments are established under this regime, they conform, at least to a degree, to garden city principles. I am sure that I do not need to remind Committee members about this. I am sure that they all follow matters to do with setting up new towns and garden cities with as much fascination as I do. The Government put through a new garden city under an urban development corporation last year.
Opposition Members’ concern about the procedure relates to the fact that although urban development corporations can deliver new housing and even some associated infrastructure, in their current form they most certainly do not deliver garden cities, because they are not underpinned by garden city principles. The purpose of the amendment is to try to ensure that they are—that they contribute in that way. In particular, the amendment, as opposed to some of the measures that we discussed earlier in our proceedings, focuses on sustainable development and ensuring that the new housing developments are sustainable for the future. They would have built into them, for example, provision to ensure that they contributed to
“the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community”.
They would
“protect and enhance the natural and historic environment”.
They would also—I am quite concerned that this is missing from the Bill at present—have to
“contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008”.
They would have to
“promote high quality and inclusive design”.
They would have to ensure that decision making was
“open, transparent, participative and accountable”
and that assets were managed for the
“long-term interest of the community.”
The amendment is also designed to ensure that local people are very much involved in the setting up of a new town or garden city and with the infrastructure and the area’s long-term development.
This approach has been helpfully outlined for the whole Committee by the Town and Country Planning Association. In fact, the manifesto that it recently launched in Parliament directly addresses this clause and the amendment to it. Basically, it argues that planning in this country needs to be much more people centred and to get back to some of its roots. It points out that Planning4People is a coalition of organisations and individuals who share a common belief in the value of place making to achieve a just and sustainable future. Together, they are determined to ensure that planning shapes the kind of places that this nation deserves. Planning must change so that it is genuinely focused on people’s needs. Our objective is to bring about the rebirth of the creative, social town planning, which did so much to lay the foundations of a civilised Britain—
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
For the record, can the hon. Lady dissociate herself from the comments of the witness from the Town and Country Planning Association? The TCPA compared the Government’s very sensible legislation to racially motivated zoning, which was struck down by the US Supreme Court. That was effectively nonsense on stilts.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The point I remember the TCPA representative making—which is an issue that perhaps the Minister will want to deal with today—was that the Government appeared to be trying to put together the American zonal system of planning with our local plan-making system and that those two things do not sit very well together, and perhaps we should have one system or the other. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have missed something else, because I was focusing on the difficulties that would be caused by having the two systems together.
Mr Jackson
I do not want to try your patience, Mr Gray, but the hon. Lady is praying in aid the evidence of the TCPA. I raised the point that that evidence was very contentious. It made a number of assertions about the Bill from which I invited the hon. Lady to distance herself.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Perhaps I should clarify for the hon. Gentleman that the evidence to which I am referring at the moment was put together by a whole range of different organisations, which go under the umbrella of Planning4People. This group said that they are trying to get back to an idea of town planning that did so much to lay the foundation of a civilised Britain, using democratic planning to put people at the heart of the process. This is relevant to the amendment because this group of planners are guided by a very powerful definition of sustainable development, which emphasises social justice as a key outcome. They also say that they want a real concentration on building places that are sustainable for future generations, not only to live in but to live decent lives in. They go on, very helpfully, to outline for us what some of those places would look like.
This means that there would be a concern to reduce inequalities of income and of access to education and health, and to promote places where individuals and communities can achieve lasting levels of happiness and wellbeing. I thought that Conservative Members could get behind this particular idea underpinning planning and, indeed, that they would relish getting behind a planning system that seeks to put the achievement of happiness and wellbeing at its heart. I am sure that we would all like our planning system to deliver that.
Planning4People is asking for a new legal duty in planning legislation that would ensure that planning is based on outcomes. It stresses in particular how sustainable development will be achieved, with the requirement to reduce social inequality, give councils back powers over permitted development and so on. That is what this amendment would do. I draw that particular publication to the attention of hon. Members, because I think that it sets out very clearly for us a context in which perhaps I can persuade the Minister that, in introducing urban development corporations, he will ensure that they are underpinned by some of the garden city principles that we want to see.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned wellbeing, which made me recall a speech by the Prime Minister—I pay huge attention to his speeches—in which he talked about wellbeing. He said:
“I am excited about this, because it’s one of those things you talk about in opposition, and say that this is something we ought to try and measure, get right, and understand”.
Does she agree that the Prime Minister is spot on in trying to ensure that wellbeing is at the front of Government policy?
Dr Blackman-Woods
Well, is not that interesting? We obviously have a convert to the cause in the Prime Minister, who will clearly join us in our efforts to get the pursuit of happiness built into the planning system. Let us hope he will send a quick text to the Minister so that we can get agreement on the amendment, because an excellent outcome to our deliberations would be to ensure that we got a planning system with some vision for the future built around sustainability principles, with wellbeing at its centre.
The amendment specifically asks the Minister to ensure that: urban development corporations have land value capture attached to them; there is community ownership of land and long-term stewardship of assets; there are mixed tenure homes affordable for ordinary people; there is a strong local jobs offer in the garden city; and there is high-quality, imaginative design and generous green space, linked to a wider natural environment, including a mix of public and private networks of well managed, high-quality gardens, tree-lined streets and open spaces.
The Opposition think it is extremely good that Ebbsfleet is being put forward as a garden city. The Labour party thought about that and put down the foundations for it about a decade ago. It is great to see that coming to fruition, but calling something a garden city does not make it a garden city. If it is going to be a garden city, it has to have high-quality gardens, tree-lined streets and open spaces, as well as
“opportunities for residents to grow their own food, including generous allotments”,
a strong cultural offer, and
“recreational and shopping facilities in walkable neighbourhoods”.
I do not think that we have touched on this so far in our deliberations, but if we are to produce and build truly sustainable communities, we have to think about how we encourage people to walk or cycle, or how we connect them through good, publicly accessible transport systems.
We need built into the legislation the principles of what will make up a garden city such as Ebbsfleet or any future developments that will come under UDCs. Otherwise, I am not sure—the Minister might know another way—how it will deliver a garden city as opposed to a UDC that will simply deliver new homes. Those new homes are very welcome—we are not against them—but we are concerned about the fact that there is nothing to ensure that a garden city emerges in any way at all.
The Minister seems to think I do not get out enough, so I just want to reassure him that I do sometimes go to see new developments and I did go to see Ebbsfleet. The developers are very keen to have good infrastructure underpinning that development. However, the urban development corporation that underpins Ebbsfleet does not require them to do any of this. That does not seem satisfactory. It is called a garden city, yet there is nothing that makes it a garden city.
If I have missed something in what the Minister is bringing forward for these new development corporations, I apologise and he can correct me, but as I read what is in clauses 109 and 110, I cannot see anything that aims to put into the Bill that these urban development corporations must address issues of sustainability. We want, for example, to see really good-quality houses built, but we also want to see zero-carbon homes. That is what was meant—I quote the Government expressly—when they said their aim for Ebbsfleet and garden cities generally was to provide
“high quality, attractive and sustainably constructed housing”.
How can the Minister be sure that that will be achieved without having something in the Bill about how these development corporations must address issues of sustainability?
Opposition Members feel strongly about this issue. We have argued long and hard for a new generation of garden cities. Many organisations, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, have written to the Minister and to the Committee urging them to take on board what is in the amendment and to put more in the Bill so that we can ensure that we have the sort of development we want to see—an attractive environment with workable housing and social facilities, an amazing, visionary new place to live, an amazing regeneration of an area that we can all be proud of.
Matthew Pennycook
I support the amendment. We all welcome development and new homes, but I strongly agree that garden cities and corporations, when they are bringing development forward, need to put sustainability and place making at the heart of their plans. That has a particular resonance with something that I am very passionate about, which is climate change and energy efficiency.
New subsection (2B)(e) would ensure that, in building new homes, UDCs would have to ensure that those homes and that development
“contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008”.
We know that homes are central to the UK meeting its climate change targets and that meeting our EU obligations of 15% renewables by 2020 looks ever more precarious; a leaked letter from the Secretary of State only a few weeks back showed that. Homes have a crucial role to play.
The context at the moment for delivering sustainable homes is not great. The Government have scrapped the zero-carbon homes policy that was starting to bear fruit in many areas. The London Mayor has taken a different view and sought to put some of the provisions of that policy back in place through the London plan, and I welcome that. The context for bringing forward environmentally sustainable, high-quality homes has become more precarious and the amendment would go some way, in relation to UDCs, to making sure that sustainable homes are at the heart of what is built. That is important.
It goes back to the debate we had earlier. The hon. Members for Peterborough and for South Norfolk, and others, bemoaned the socialist architecture of the 1950s—I would call it brutalist, though they may not draw such a distinction—when homes and places for people to live were built that have not fared well over the decades. We have an obligation because the cost of retrofitting homes that fall below environmentally sustainable standards far outweighs that of the measures we need to put in place. We want to build homes that last for generations and are fit for people to live in. For that reason I support the amendment.
Helen Hayes
I, too, want to speak briefly in support of the amendment. However the planning system is defined, it embodies a set of values and prioritises a series of outcomes. Garden cities of the past were so successful as communities, function so well and are such popular places to live in precisely because of the high aspirations and strong values on which they were founded and the extensive efforts to secure high-quality design and the long-term sustainability of the resourcing of those communities, in all sorts of different ways. That happened because their founders were thinking about long-term success and the values of the communities that they were developing and because they were established on strong principles.
In contrast, some of the early urban development corporations did not embody those same aspirations. The development that took place was, in many cases, far less attractive as a consequence and far less well served with open spaces and amenities. It was often unsustainable or lacking in things such as local school places and good public transport connections. Some of those lessons from the early urban development corporations have informed the way in which development has taken place in the last 10 years or so. We have seen an emphasis on bringing forward community infrastructure early in the development process, so that communities are not left stranded and ill-provided for.
So far, I have seen nothing in the Bill that will ensure that new development under the Bill will be built to a high quality or high standard of sustainability. That is of significant concern. That is what the amendment is seeking to ensure both for urban development corporations and garden cities, which can and should play a significant role in building the homes we need. We must ensure that those homes are built to the highest standards for the long term, that they become part of the heritage of this country and of communities we can be proud of for the long term. We will do that only if we get right the values and the aspirations on which they are founded. That is why I am pleased to support the amendment.
Peter Dowd
I, too, support the amendment. It is partly because of my experience of being raised in an urban area where, post-war, many houses, and communities, were knocked down. Those communities were not fantastic all the time, but at their heart they had a community spirit. There was a genuine attempt in the post-war environment to expand and continue with that spirit, which was often difficult to do. Part of that was to ensure that when people left the slums—there should be no beating about the bush, because that is what they were; it was slum clearance—they went to an environment where houses were designed as best they could be and for the best reasons. However, there is a danger in the current proposals that there is a push, a push and a push for growth. Although there is nothing wrong with that, the quality of the housing that arises from that push can get lost in the race. This is an attempt to lay out a protocol for building.
In Merseyside, the village of Port Sunlight, which many people may have been to, was built by Lord Lever. It is a perfect example of a garden city that, to this day, looks virtually no different from the way it did 100 years ago. It is a fantastic place. Many other places in Liverpool have smaller versions of that, such as Norris Green, which won awards in the 1920s and 1930s for the design of its buildings. There is nothing to stop us supporting this proposal and to reify—to put into clear, unambiguous terms—what we expect from some of the garden city developments.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Once again, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. We often forget that we are talking about planning places that we hope will exist for generations to come. We want to be proud of the quality of the new developments and it behoves all of us, including the Minister, to ensure that garden city principles underpin the new developments.
Peter Dowd
I fully recognise those aims. Not far from where I live, the Criddle’s Estate was developed by a well-known socialist in our neck of the woods. It remains a beacon to the way developments can occur, if you get things right. The houses are solid, well sought after and an integral part of the community. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to make sure that, when we build garden cities, or developments that are not garden cities, we set out the principle clearly for everyone to see.
The amendment is perfectly reasonable. It sets out a framework for future development and I hope the Minister, even if he does not agree with it completely, understands and accepts the principle on which it is based.
Brandon Lewis
I wholeheartedly agree that, where statutory delivery vehicles such as urban development corporations or new town development corporations are created, high-quality, sustainable place making should be absolutely at the heart of what they do. As we are having a clause stand part debate, let me pick up on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who made a very good point about the inflammatory nature of some of the remarks of the TCPA. They were not only inflammatory, but ill-advised, and they discredited that organisation. I do not intend to give it the credibility of commenting on the remarks any further.
The hon. Member for City of Durham and I worked together in the previous Parliament, cross party, to get the urban development corporations set up. I thanked her colleagues at the time—the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds)—for their work in taking that forward and for showing how we can work together. We all want Ebbsfleet to develop appropriately. The establishment of the Ebbsfleet development corporation highlighted that the process itself needed updating, especially in the light of the more familiar practice of consultation. At the time, I said to our friends in the other place that we would come forward with this legislation as soon as we could to rectify the situation. That is where we are coming from.
In a more general sense in response to some of the comments we have heard this afternoon, while agreeing with the ethos of wanting high-quality development and communities to be delivered, we can see the difference between where the Opposition and the Government stand. For example, because of the way in which the proposal is drafted, it could slow down development in and of itself, as well as not providing good-quality outcomes. That is because it so focused on a process of having to tick the boxes for A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H in order to qualify. We will find developers ticking those boxes rather than looking at what the right outcome is and working with the local community. I have some understanding of and sympathy with Opposition Members, who are very determined to ensure that they are planning well for people. The difference between us is that I believe that planning should be done by local people for local people and that it should not be done to them. We have to be very clear that we trust local people. I will comment on that in a moment.
Brandon Lewis
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the national planning policy framework. It is only 50 pages long, and I am sure that it will entertain him this evening. I suggest that he looks at how local plans work, how neighbourhood plans work, and at consultation more generally. Even the corporations will come from local areas. On garden cities, towns and settlements and new settlements more generally, I am very keen, as are the Government, to work with various developers, but they will come from the area. There will not be the top-down, failed approach of the past.
Sustainable development in itself is hardwired into the planning system. It is absolutely central to the national planning policy framework, and rightly so. The framework provides a clear view of what sustainable development means in practice. It is explicit that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to achieving sustainable development, and that three pillars are key: the environment, society and the economy. They are mutually dependent and cannot and should not be pursued in isolation. We do not need a separate, statutory, tick-box requirement around sustainable development that applies only in a case where an urban development corporation or new town development corporation has been created. It would be quite unhelpful and distorting to have a separate definition of sustainable development outlined that applies only to them.
Nor do I think that we should limit local flexibility. Where local areas decide that an urban development corporation or new town development corporation is the best way to deliver regeneration or, indeed, a new town or settlement, rather than ticking their way through that long list of objectives, they should have the freedom to create strong, sustainable communities in a way that best reflects their local circumstances. It is they who best know their local needs, not us sitting here in Whitehall.
Great place making in and of itself is secured not through detailed central prescription, but through good, strong, clear and transparent local leadership. That applies whether or not the development is led by an urban development corporation, such as in Ebbsfleet. A master plan has been worked through for Ebbsfleet that makes it very clear that the ambition is to see the development of garden city principles. I saw that just yesterday when I went to announce the new Didcot garden town development, which is looking for innovation as well as good-quality development.
We see that where settlements are being developed in areas right around our country, from Northamptonshire right the way through to the south-west and Hampshire. Indeed, we only have to look at the well known example of north-west Bicester, where 6,000-odd high-quality homes are being developed to zero-carbon standards. That is being done without central prescription, highlighting that local areas can be trusted to do the right thing and get the right quality for their local community. The local authority itself or the local development corporation when it is set up can deliver that, and should be empowered to do so without those strictures being put on them by central Government. I hope that that provides the hon. Lady with sufficient confidence to withdraw her amendment.
Helen Hayes
Will the Minister clarify whether the homes in Bicester that are being delivered to the zero-carbon homes standard were consented to and the process of their delivery begun prior to the abolition of the zero-carbon homes standard?
Brandon Lewis
There has not been a zero-carbon homes standard, and we have decided not to go forward with it. They are continuing it in Bicester anyway, and are in fact going to some quite interesting lengths. I say to the hon. Lady that, when I last visited Bicester, I was shown a really ambitious programme to develop a really sustainable community. In one area, the homes that are being built are provided with electric chargers for the cars, and the developer working with the local authority has negotiated with local car dealers to lend the new home buyers an electric car for a couple of weeks to show them how practical they are and how well they work in order to encourage electric cars. That is locally decided, not working to a tick-box from central Government. That is why it is right that local areas are empowered to do those things. More importantly, we should trust local people to do what is right for them. Time and again when we trust local people, they prove that they get it right. I am happy to continue supporting that, so I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The Minister’s response is entirely what I expected, unfortunately. The amendment seeks to provide a set of principles that can be attached to urban development corporations. Those principles are not prescriptive. Indeed, if an urban development corporation is not contributing to an area’s sustainable economic development, is not contributing to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of a community, is not protecting and enhancing the natural and historical environment, is not contributing to mitigation and adaptation to climate change, is not promoting high-quality and inclusive design, is not ensuring that decision making is open, transparent, participative and accountable, and is not ensuring that assets are managed in a community’s long-term interest, what exactly is it doing? Those are all things that we would expect to see from any new development. I am very disappointed with the Minister’s response and, on that basis, I will press amendment 236 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
I beg to move amendment 246, in clause 11, page 52, line 32, after “survey” insert “or value”.
This amendment ensures that the right of entry in clause 111 may be exercised to value land as well as to survey it.
Mr Jones
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Before I get into the detail of the amendments, it may be helpful if I provide a little background on the measure to which they relate: the right to enter and survey land. Any acquiring authority may need to enter land to survey it before deciding whether to proceed with a compulsory purchase order. For example, an acquiring authority may need to find out whether there are any underground structures or contamination that may hamper a proposed scheme. Currently, most, but not all, acquiring authorities have that power of entry, but there is no logical reason for that difference in powers.
Mr Thomas
I am minded to support the Government amendments, particularly as it is the hon. Gentleman moving them rather than the Minister for Housing and Planning, but will he set out why he thinks they are needed? Compulsory purchase powers have existed for a long time, and I am not aware of a huge problem in terms of access in order to survey land. Why is it a problem now?
Mr Jones
I do not know what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has done to upset the hon. Gentleman. The reason we are introducing the provisions is to put all authorities on a level playing field when undertaking or exercising the right to compulsory purchase. At the moment, the rights that we are discussing can be exercised by local authorities, the Homes and Communities Agency and urban development corporations, but there are organisations, such as NHS trusts and Natural England, and certain Ministers within the Government, who do not have the same powers, so we have sought to extend them to ensure that the situation is consistent.
Peter Dowd
At the moment, to the best of my knowledge, those authorities tend to be, as the Minister has identified, effectively public authorities, such as Ministers, the NHS and so on. Can we have clarity as to whether the powers will extend that authority status to private authorities?
Mr Jones
There are circumstances in which that could be the case, but it would generally be where a local authority or another public body exercises its compulsory purchase powers before using a private organisation, for example, as a delivery vehicle for the proposed scheme. A town centre scheme is probably a good example. On that basis, I believe that I have answered the Opposition’s questions so far, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 246 agreed to.
Amendments made: 247, in clause 111, page 52, line 32, leave out “compulsorily”.
This amendment ensures that the right of entry in clause 111 may be exercised prior to acquiring land by agreement as well as compulsorily.
Amendment 248, in clause 111, page 52, line 35, after “survey” insert “or value”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 281, in clause 111, page 52, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) may do so when an existing planning permission has expired”.
This amendment would ensure that compulsory purchase order powers exist where planning permission has expired.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 282, in clause 111, page 52, line 37, at end insert—
“(d) may do so when development has failed to commence”.
This amendment would ensure that compulsory purchase order powers exist where development has failed to commence.
Amendment 283, in clause 111, page 52, line 37, at end insert—
“(e) may do so where an empty dwelling exists”.
This amendment would ensure there are strong compulsory purchase powers to tackle empty homes.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Before I speak to amendment 281, I think it is worth putting on the record that, once again, we are very pleased that the Government have looked in detail at the recommendations of the Lyons review and have brought forward more of the measures that were recommended in that excellent document, although we think there could be a bit of tweaking to improve matters further—that is the premise of amendments 281, 282 and 283. These are designed to ensure that the process of compulsory purchase orders is expedited and prioritises the ability for land to be used in order to build more homes, which both sides of the Committee have agreed we very much want.
In its evidence to the Committee, Milton Keynes Council called for the proposed reforms to go further and to include a default position that all decisions on confirmation of a compulsory purchase order are delegated to the acquiring authority; a more fundamental consolidation and streamlining of the legislative provisions for compulsory purchase; and stronger compulsory purchase powers where planning permissions have expired and development has not commenced. Hon. Members who have looked at the Lyons review in detail will know that we spent a great deal of time looking at what happens when planning approval has expired, when there does not seem to be any building on the site or when building on the site has stalled for no obvious reason, and when the council does not appear to be able to do very much to move that development on. Milton Keynes and other councils have argued for stronger powers where planning permissions have expired and, in particular, where development has not commenced and does not look as if it will commence in the near future.
They have also asked for stronger compulsory purchase powers to tackle empty homes. What I have done—I hope it is in order, Mr Gray—is to put the three amendments together and I will speak on that basis. We also want stronger powers for councils to direct the use of publicly owned land. As I said, Milton Keynes Council is not alone in calling for the legislation to be strengthened. The Local Government Association has also been a leading voice in calling for the process to be streamlined. It has given a lot of evidence to the Committee suggesting that and I draw the attention of Members to its briefings on the subject. They give a lot of background detail about why the LGA wants the sorts of measures outlined in the three amendments to be adopted by the Government so as to speed up the process of compulsory purchase orders.
Amendments 281 and 282 would ensure that compulsory purchase orders are made faster and fairer by inserting specific instances that could provide that ease. The Government said in the October consultation that they want to streamline the process and make it more transparent. We believe that the amendments provide for that. They would strengthen compulsory purchase powers where planning permission has expired. That would be used as a measure of last resort, and with appropriate safeguards, to allow councils to tackle sites that have had planning permission for a long time but that have not been built out.
The entire notion of compulsory purchase orders is to make sure that land that is not being used can be put to use to benefit the community. Where planning permission is granted and subsequently expires without development having begun, why is there not the ability to take stronger action to ensure that development takes place on the site? It might be worth the Minister considering the suggestion in the Lyons review that land with planning permission that has not been built out within five years should be put up for auction if a new application for planning permission does not seem to be forthcoming. How does the local authority get access to that land in order to ensure that development takes place? That is an extremely important issue in trying to get more land into the system and in trying to ensure that the land that is already in the system, and that has been identified and given planning permission for housing, is brought forward.
If we want to overcome the housing crisis through a more efficient and effective planning process, one way for that to happen is to ensure that, in the circumstances I have outlined, compulsory purchase orders can not only be made but be made fairly easily. We have part 7 of the Bill because there is agreement on both sides of the Committee that the process needs to be streamlined. The view of councils and local authorities, which are often at the hard end of needing to get land developed, is that the proposals need to go a bit further.
Similarly, amendment 283 would ensure that compulsory purchase orders are able to support local authorities to bring empty homes back into use—the amendment would enable local authorities to refurbish such properties and bring them back into a habitable state. To put that in context, Government tables show that, in October 2014, there were 610,000 vacant homes in England alone, which is a very high number. A small number of those homes, only 25,000 or so, were owned by the local authority. If we compare the number of homes that local authorities can do something about at the moment—around 20,000 or 25,000—with the massive 610,000 vacant properties that are out there, it clearly shows that something needs to happen to bring those homes into use, and to bring them into use more quickly.
In its response to the consultation on improving the compulsory purchase process, the LGA pointed out that there is a lot to be gained from supporting councils to bring empty homes back into use:
“Local authorities could…recoup their investment through rental income over the set time period, and even acquire nomination rights, returning the properties back to their owners at the end of the lease.”
Moreover, there is something to be gained within the wider community by supporting councils to address empty homes. Long-term empty homes tend to have a negative impact on surrounding homes and areas. Although addressing empty homes will not provide a solution to the need for new homes, it is part of the solution. Both sides of the Committee agree that we need a multi-tenure approach and that we have to get more homes into the system through a range of measures. It is therefore incumbent on all of us that we do not forget how empty homes could provide part of the solution. We recognise that empty homes are only part of the solution, but they are an important part of making the best use of the stock that already exists.
It is also important to allow, and perhaps enable, councils to show that they are actively engaged in finding practical solutions to housing problems in their area. I am sure we have all had local people say to us, “With so many families on the housing waiting list and so many homeless families, why aren’t those houses that are lying empty brought back into use?” Of course, the reality, as we know, is that it is often very difficult for local authorities to find out who owns a property or what state the ownership is in. They have to go down a very lengthy and costly compulsory purchase order route that is often challenged at later stages in the legal process.
Peter Dowd
I think that what I am about to say is a little counter-intuitive, but I suspect that it is based on the principle of more haste, less speed, in relation to this matter. May I say for the record that I am a Shostakovich man and not a Duran Duran man?
This clause raises more questions than it answers, and that is more about what is in it than what is not in it. Many organisations are perplexed at the lost opportunity in relation to CPOs. I think that many rural communities will be concerned, and I will come on to that point later.
One organisation that has concerns is the Country Land and Business Association. It wrote a document in 2012—it may have been updated, but I do not think it has been—called “Fair Play”. The association, which comprises 34,000 members, owns and manages half the rural land in England and Wales; there are 250 different types of businesses involved with it and they have concerns about CPOs and the process in general. They are right, because they tend to be on the receiving end of CPOs, whether from the utilities, local authorities or public bodies in the form of schools or hospitals and so on. Of course, they also have concerns about private development on their land, and compulsory purchase arising from that.
Developments in and legislation on compulsory purchase have been incredibly piecemeal over the past century and that is the context in which this debate is set. That has happened not just under Conservative Governments or Labour Governments, but under every Government. Whether the major change in development is progressive or not—I will not get into that argument—and whether it is centralising or localising, it is important for the Minister to consider some of those issues.
The CLA talked about a
“significant impact on people, their lives and their aspirations”
and I want to touch on rural areas. HS2 is a particular concern for them. It is an example where CPOs are seen as a blunt, aggressive and overbearing instrument of “state oppression”.
In light of what is a significant—groundbreaking, if the Committee will excuse the pun on house building—change to the law, there are issues of duty of care, which are addressed to some extent in the amendments. If the provisions are the way forward for planning and a longer- term economic plan, whether that plan is A, B or C, and are setting the scene for planning for growth, they must also take into account the economic impact on those who are directly and indirectly affected by CPOs.
The issues that arise include asking, what about a statutory code of practice on CPOs? What about an independent person to oversee the process? That is the counter-intuitive bit. It seems that that would take longer than the current arrangement, but many organisations take the view that such a process, with the elements of independence and a code of practice, would speed the process up. That is something that should be considered carefully because we all accept that we must get on with house building.
Blight is another issue. A classic example that has affected many Members is HS2. Statutory blight kicks in only once a scheme has been confirmed and safeguarded in the planning process. Something needs to be done about that. If the Government are taking a central role in major infrastructure projects, they should ensure that central protection is in place for small businesses, farmers, rural enterprises and the like. It is crucial that if the dead hand of Whitehall is to be involved in the process—vicariously, I accept, via the Minister to someone else—there should be protections.
I wanted to touch on a historical issue, the so-called Crichel Down affair, which I suspect many Conservative Members are well aware of. I do not raise it to cause any concern to the Minister: Sir Thomas Dugdale had to resign over the matter, which involved the sale of agricultural land to the military, and then back for agricultural use, and caused trauma to the people involved. I raise it because the Crichel Down guidelines arising from it must be considered carefully. They are, effectively, voluntary, and we need to tighten them up and possibly put them on a statutory basis, instead of extending a century’s piecemeal creep of CPOs. The Minister might want to consider that, otherwise it is a lost opportunity to protect, psychologically and financially, people who are affected by significantly different proposals in the planning process. It is important that that point is picked up.
Another issue we must pick up on is the reconsideration of lost payments. Forcing a sale—some call it legal sequestration; call it what you will—demands a transparent process that exudes fairness. A possible payment over and over the value of land may be important where uncompensated losses are concerned. The key is that that arguably saves time, with all the haggling that goes on in relation to land values, so it is something that could be considered. Other issues to consider include a tight advance payment process, timing notices, the amount of land required, interest on payments, and the water industry serving notice to enter land without prior negotiation, which rubs people up the wrong way.
The Government have an opportunity to give careful consideration to the issues related to CPO, and to be slightly bolder in taking the matter forward. That would be to the benefit of everyone, and it would be in the long-tried British tradition of being fair and reasonable in the process. In that regard, we need protections that assure landowners—small or large—that the Government only use land that they need, rather than land that they want.
The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham helpfully clarify the important need for action in relation to CPOs, where the empty home blights not just the homeowner but the whole area. When we compensate, we should expect those who own the property to co-operate with the compulsory purchase as soon as is practically possible.
Finally, the Country Land and Business Association gives some heart-rending examples of people affected by CPOs that are not carried out right, fairly and reasonably:
“A Welsh sheep farmer, who had a substantial proportion of his holding acquired, had to rent additional land on which to graze his stock. His agent submitted and agreed the farmer’s claim with the district valuer and vigorously chased the acquirer for payment. Four years of non-payment followed with spurious excuses such as ‘the girl who writes the cheques is on holiday’. The acquirer also claimed to have lost the paperwork submitted by the claimant. The saga ended tragically when the bank foreclosed on him and he took his own life.”
The responsibility of the Committee is to ensure that fairness and reasonabless—the British way—prevails, especially when people’s property is being taken away. We also need to do that as expeditiously as possible, and we have the opportunity to do so. I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to my points.
The Chair
Order. Before I call the next speaker, it is perhaps worth pointing out that I have been fairly relaxed about allowing people to cover the whole subject of compulsory purchase and I therefore suggest that we do not have stand part debate later.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to you, Mr Gray, for allowing me to catch your eye.
In April 2015 a series of Conservative MPs came to the constituency of Harrow West to support unsuccessfully their candidate. As they were leaving, some of them may well have paused for a cup of coffee at Harrow-on-the-Hill station—there is a very nice coffee shop there. Just around the corner, however, stands the former post office site, lying empty, as it has done for some 10 years. Why do I raise that? It is partly to begin to make clear the reason for my support for amendments 282 and 283. Both my hon. Friends have explained the need to accelerate situations in which a planning application or development has stalled and local authorities or developers might want access to information about the value of a site, what is on it and how it might be developed in future.
In the context of the former Harrow post office site, there is an additional complication. It is located next to the Metropolitan railway line. Indeed, it is very close to Harrow-on-the-Hill station, which suffers from the lack of a lift, making access extremely difficult. There has long been talk of a new access point through the former Harrow post office site to the Harrow-on-the-Hill station platforms. With the benefit of amendment 282, it might be easier for local planning officers, developers and even Transport for London surveyors to access the former post office site to examine what potential it might have for new access and a new position for the main parts of Harrow-on-the-Hill station.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Has he not just given a brilliant example of what we are discussing? Having better compulsory purchase powers would enable local authorities to unlock a necessary development for his constituents of the sort that we have all been talking about.
Mr Thomas
That is generous of my hon. Friend. It is a particular concern of my constituents, given the huge cuts to Transport for London grant, which might mean that access programmes that exist for other stations are cut, putting even further away the prospect of better access at Harrow-on-the-Hill station. If there were a way to secure some planning gain from the development at the Harrow post office site that might be invested in better access and it might be another route to achieving the objective that my constituents have had for a long time now, under both Mayors of London, which is to make Harrow-on-the-Hill a fully accessible station. I hope that the Minister will be particularly attracted to amendment 282. In that spirit, I support my hon. Friend’s amendment.
Mr Jones
In replying to the hon. Member for City of Durham and Opposition Members, it may be helpful if I start by clarifying the purpose of clause 111. It does not confer any compulsory purchase powers on acquiring authorities; it merely allows acquiring authorities to enter land for survey or valuation purposes in connection with a proposal to acquire land. The intention behind the hon. Lady’s amendments therefore could not be delivered through the clause. In any case, the amendments are unnecessary. Local authorities already have the powers to acquire land by compulsion in the circumstances that the hon. Lady mentioned, provided there is a compelling case in the public interest and they have a deliverable scheme.
Also, to set the record straight, there are not currently 600,000 long-term empty properties. If the hon. Lady checks back and looks at the figures, 600,000 was the number of long-term empty properties under the last Labour Government. Under the guidance of my party in coalition and now in Government on our own, we have the lowest level of long-term vacant properties on record: 206,000. There is still significantly more to do, but we have put significant provisions in place to reduce the number of vacant properties, and the figures show that those provisions are working.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The figures—I did not actually say that they related to long-term vacant properties; I simply said they were empty—came from the Minister’s own Department in October 2014. The figures given by the Department state that there are 610,123 vacant homes. I am clear that that is the figure I was given.
Mr Jones
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I think she is putting up a false argument, because homes that are vacant in the short term are often let. That is obvious on the basis that the number of long-term vacant homes is a significantly lower number than the number of short-term vacant properties.
On the LGA, I can reassure the hon. Lady that Ministers meet it to discuss such matters regularly. On empty dwellings, local authorities can apply for empty dwelling management orders under the powers of the Housing Act 2004. That would be a far better vehicle than the amendment that she has tabled. In relation to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bootle about the process and clarity, in October we published updated guidance on the compulsory purchase process in a new format that has new user-friendly language to try and help people understand a very complex area of law.
Given the assurances that I have given to the hon. Lady, and on the basis that the intention of her amendment would not be achieved through the amendment, perhaps she will consider withdrawing it.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I know that under clause 111 as drafted it would not be possible for acquiring authorities to have access to compulsory purchase orders, but that was why we tabled the amendment. If the amendment were agreed to, the clause would allow that, and that would speed up the process of dealing with empty properties. I just say to the Minister that if the system and the Bill were okay, and if local authorities were to be enabled to do all that they want to bring forward development in their area, with sufficient land available for that, and to tackle the scourge of empty properties, they would not have asked us all to think about amending the Bill. Will he have another look at the issue? Local authorities are saying, “We cannot do what we want to do for our areas through the Bill as it stands.” I ask, in as nice a way as possible, that he thinks about the matter again, and especially what can be done to bring empty properties back into use as quickly as possible. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 111, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 112
Warrant authorising use of force to enter and survey land
Amendments made: 249, in clause 112, page 53, line 18, after “surveying” insert “or valuing”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 250, in clause 112, page 53, line 20, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr Gray. I rise in the context of one or two cases in which Hansard reports of proceedings have been used to help a judge to understand the motives behind measures, thus allowing them to make a judgment on a case before them. I also wish to ask the Minister a number of questions about this clause. When he introduced clauses 111 to 117, he described how several parts of government do not have the same opportunities as others to access, enter and survey land. If I remember his response to my intervention correctly, he referenced NHS trusts in particular, as well as one or two Departments. I wonder whether the situation is the same specifically with regard to clause 112, because it seems a little odd to include in the Bill a clause that authorises the use of force to enter and survey land. Will he set out examples of when NHS trusts or Departments have wanted or felt that they needed to use force, but had to back off because there is no provision in law to allow that, meaning that they either had not to go down the compulsory purchase order route, or had to find some other way of getting the information that they needed?
It would also be helpful if the Minister gave some examples of what is meant by “to use force”. Are we talking about guns or wire cutters? It would be helpful if he could give examples of local authorities that have said to him, “We need the ability to use force to enter and survey land because otherwise we won’t be able to go ahead with a whole series of compulsory purchase orders that have been set out.”
I worry that subsection (2) involves, once again, the word “reasonably” being written into law. That word that has all sorts of connotations for different people. The clause might create a lot of case law, so this is an opportunity for the Minister to set out his definition of “reasonably necessary” and therefore to limit the possibility of misunderstandings in court when a warrant is being challenged by a potential developer. I ask my questions in the spirit of gentle inquiry and look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Mr Jones
We would expect most acquiring authorities exercising their compulsory purchase rights to reach agreement with owners and occupiers about entry to their land. Warrants are only for those cases when entry is refused or is likely to be refused. It is impossible to predict how many warrants will be sought, as that will depend on the number of compulsory purchase proposals that come forward, the number of affected owners and occupiers, and their reaction to each particular proposal. Just to give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance, however, clause 112 makes it absolutely clear that while the warrant authorises the use of force, a justice of the peace, when deciding whether to issue a warrant, must be satisfied that the use of force is reasonable in the particular case, and the force that may be authorised is limited to what is reasonably necessary. In addition, all evidence in proceedings must be given under oath and the warrant must specify the number of times that entry will be allowed.
Mr Thomas
The Minister has helpfully detailed the context in which a warrant might be issued and specified that he expects that the vast majority of efforts to enter and survey land will not require a warrant in the first place. However, to come back to the nub of my earlier comments, why is the power necessary? Have the Minister’s civil servants had to field a series of requests from local authorities or developers for these powers?
Mr Jones
I have set out that the warrants will be used only when the landowner has an adverse reaction to a request to enter and survey or value land. It is clear that many acquiring authorities and landowners will come to arrangements themselves, but the case the hon. Gentleman mentioned of his own railway station is a prime example of when a scheme was being put forward but the landowner completely refused to allow the acquiring authority the right to come on to the land to survey and value it. I expect that he would want some sort of mechanism whereby that acquiring authority would be able to enter the land.
Mr Thomas
Does the Minister have fracking in mind? He shakes his head and looks pained—I recognise that that is a sensitive subject for Conservative Members—but does he envisage a warrant requiring the use of force being needed if protesters had barricaded themselves in, or if the person who owned the land did not want someone who had been given fracking consent to survey what may or may not be underneath the ground?
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman has come up with many conspiracy theories during our scrutiny of the Bill and I suspect that this may well be another one. I have set out the reasoning behind clause 112 in detail and hope that hon. Members will agree to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 112, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114
Enhanced authorisation procedures etc. for certain surveys
Amendments made: 251, in clause 114, page 54, line 11, after “surveys” insert “or values”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 252, in clause 114, page 54, line 15, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 253, in clause 114, page 54, line 17, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 254, in clause 114, page 54, line 32, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 255, in clause 114, page 54, line 33, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Amendment 256, in clause 114, page 54, line 40, after “survey” insert “or valuation”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 257, in clause 114, page 54, line 40, at end insert—
“(5) See section 169(4) of the Water Industry Act 1991 and section 171(4) of the Water Resources Act 1991 for additional procedures in relation to the exercise of the power in section 111 on behalf of a water undertaker, the Environment Agency or the Natural Resources Body for Wales.”
See Member’s explanatory statement for NC18.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 18—Amendments to do with section 111 to 117.
Government new schedule 3—Right to enter and survey land: consequential amendments.
Mr Jones
Amendment 257, new clause 18 and new schedule 3 clarify how the new right of entry will interact with a number of existing powers of entry. As I have explained, the intention is that all acquiring authorities should, when possible, use the new general power of entry, so when the new general power covers all the purposes of an existing power of entry, that existing power will be repealed in its entirety. If the scope of the existing power is wider than that of the new general power, we will amend the existing power so that it no longer applies to the specific purposes for which the general power can be used.
Amendment 257 signposts additional procedures that relevant acquiring authorities must follow when exercising the right of entry under clause 111. Those additional procedures, as set out in the Water Industry Act 1991 and the Water Resources Act 1991, require water undertakers, the Environment Agency and the Natural Resources Wales to seek the Secretary of State’s written authorisation before exercising the right to enter in certain circumstances. The amendment simply replicates an important safeguard in the existing power of entry.
New clause 18 introduces new schedule 3, which sets out the changes to each of the existing powers of entry. I will highlight one particular point. The existing powers of entry repealed by paragraphs 8, 9, 19, 20 and 27 of new schedule 3 allow entry in connection with any claim for compensation in respect of an acquisition. The new general power of entry in clause 111 does not cover that purpose. However, as such claims arise after a compulsory purchase order has been confirmed, paragraph 6 of new schedule 3 clarifies that acquiring authorities will be able to rely on the power of entry under section 11(3) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 for that purpose.
Amendment 257 agreed to.
The Chair
Before we move on, I would like to comment on a small matter of protocol. On several occasions today, members of staff have come into the Strangers Gallery and handed documents and other things to members of the Committee. That is not in order—you may not do that. If you want to get something from members of staff, go outside into the corridor and do it there, if that is agreeable.
Clause 114, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115 and 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 117
Right to enter and survey Crown land
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Thomas
In the spirit of my contribution on clause 112, I want to ask some questions about clause 117. Why do we require a clause on the right to enter and survey Crown land? I struggle to understand why a warrant authorising the use of force might be necessary to enter and survey Crown land, so I would welcome the Minister’s setting out an example of why that might be necessary.
I also struggle to understand why somebody who is, presumably, employed by the Queen might be at risk of committing an offence under clause 116 in relation to entering and surveying Crown land. Why on earth do we need to include Crown land under the Bill? One assumes that, as a general rule, Her Majesty and those who exercise control of her lands would work with Government Departments and developers to allow them to enter and survey land. Even if those employed by Her Majesty did not co-operate, I struggle to understand why we would want to take action against staff employed to look after Crown land, or why the Minister thinks that a warrant authorising the use of force is necessary. Will the Minister set out in particular whether this measure covers Crown Estate land? Has he had any consultations with the Crown Estate itself about how clauses 111 to 116 apply to Crown Estate land under the terms of clause 117?
Mr Jones
I will respond quickly to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. Clause 117 explains that the new power of entry will be available in relation to Crown land—any land in which there is a Crown or a duchy interest, for example—but the permission of the appropriate Crown authority must be obtained first. That ensures that there is appropriate protection for Crown land. The measure is based on existing precedent. For instance, the power of entry set out in sections 53 and 54 of the Planning Act 2008 involves a similar provision in respect of Crown land.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119
Confirmation by inspector
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 258, in clause 119, page 57, line 1, leave out from beginning to “is” in line 2 and insert—
“Where an inspector decides whether or not to confirm the whole or part of a compulsory purchase order, the inspector’s decision”.
This amendment would mean that an inspector’s decision whether or not to confirm the whole or part of a compulsory purchase order would be treated as a decision of the confirming authority. The current wording would mean that only a decision to confirm a compulsory purchase order would be treated as the authority’s decision.
Before I explain the amendment, it might be helpful if I provide a little background about the provision to which it relates—clause 119, on confirmation by an inspector. The purpose of the clause is to allow each Secretary of State with powers to confirm a compulsory purchase order to appoint an inspector to make the decision directly in suitable cases. That would speed up the decision-making process by removing the two-stage handling of the confirmation of an order, which is where an inspector makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who makes the decision.
An inspector may be appointed to act in relation to a specific order or a description of compulsory purchase orders. The Government intend to publish a policy on which orders are suitable for confirmation by an inspector after further engagement with stakeholders. The provision is, however, likely to be useful in cases that do not raise issues of more than local importance. In such cases, the Secretary of State often fully agrees with the inspector’s reasoning and decides the order in accordance with the inspector’s recommendation. Removing this double handling could shorten the process by up to 12 weeks.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 280, in clause 119, page 57, line 24, at end insert—
“(d) submitted to the acquiring authority”.
This amendment would include local authorities in the compulsory purchase order decision.
I would appreciate a bit of direction from the Chair, Mr Gray.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Thank you, Mr Gray. I wish to speak about amendment 280 and to make some wider comments about clause stand part, and I seek guidance as to whether I should do them both together.
The Chair
It might be simplest if the hon. Lady spoke about amendment 280 and made comments on clause stand part; we could then avoid having a separate debate later. Please range wider than the amendment would indicate.
Dr Blackman-Woods
That is very helpful. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Gray.
Amendment 280 aims further to include the local authority in planning decisions and asks for local authorities to be engaged with the compulsory purchase order decisions. It would add a useful element to the Bill for two main reasons.
First, it would ensure that local authorities have a strong and active role in the CPO decision. As we have highlighted throughout the Committee process, and it has been backed up time and again by those giving evidence, local authorities often have a much better knowledge of and insight into the needs and realities of a local area than central Government or, in this particular instance, a planning inspector.
That is obviously also true when it comes to planning decisions and putting local people at the heart of the planning process. It is important that local councillors in particular are involved in compulsory purchase. They are often in a very good position to bring about a collaborative approach, rather than one that is simply top-down, and can play a pivotal role in explaining to a local community and to the owners of the land why compulsory purchase is a sensible decision. We feel that this role for local authorities and their councillors in mediating some of the disputes that can arise from CPO decisions has been overlooked, or perhaps it has not been exploited enough by Government and those seeking to bring about compulsory purchase. It could also be an important element in speeding the process up, because that mediation that can be brought about locally could help to highlight some of the difficulties that exist.
Again, this amendment has come forward very strongly from the LGA, which says that it wants to be actively engaged in the process; it thinks that it could have a positive impact on decisions. The LGA has said that the consultation that the Government carried out before introducing the Bill proposed enabling powers to allow the Secretary of State to delegate decisions for confirmation to an inspector in certain instances, which is exactly what we are discussing in relation to clause 119.
Although that is a step in the right direction and should speed up decision making to a degree, we think that the Government should be even more ambitious. That is why we think that the requirement for permission from the Secretary of State to proceed with a compulsory purchase order should be removed, or at least that consideration should be given to removing it in certain circumstances, particularly where safeguards are in place and it is clearly set out in legislation that local authorities could be given that decision. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister when he responds to these points why he thinks that we should not do more to strengthen the role that local authorities could play in bringing about CPOs swiftly and ensuring that all parties are on board with the decision.
I have a few wider comments, which I will keep extremely brief. Again, the LGA, on the back of this clause and other related clauses, has said that it thinks that there could be a
“more fundamental consolidation and streamlining of the legislative provisions for compulsory purchase”.
In particular, it points out:
“A number of different Acts and statutory instruments introduced over more than 150 years pertaining to compulsory purchase have resulted in antiquated legal terminology, inconsistences and uncertainties, all of which add to the costs of the CPO process and the scope for dispute.”
That is an extremely interesting point. Although the clause contains some of the streamlining that we all want to speed up the CPO process and make it easier to understand and more transparent, we are probably seeing the need for consolidating legislation that would make it easier for everyone.
The LGA makes another important point:
“Land valuation should be considered by the tribunal up front, in cases where a compulsory purchase order is in contest, not at the end of the process, creating greater certainty”
for all parties. I would be grateful, when the Minister is responding to both the amendment and clause stand part, if he said more about what we can do to help local authorities. I point out to him that we have an incredibly complicated 10-stage process in place at the moment. Anything that we can do to streamline it would be helpful. It is clear from the many representations made to the Committee that giving local authorities a greater role would help streamline the process hugely. More than that, it would show that the Government have faith in local authorities to do the best for their area. We understand fully the need for safeguards in certain circumstances, but we would like the Government to extend localism to having some faith that local authorities know what is best for their communities, and allowing them a direct role in the compulsory purchase process.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her explanation of amendment 280 relating to clause 119(3), which substitutes for section 2(2) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 a new section 2(2) requiring a compulsory purchase order to be made by the acquiring authority and submitted to the confirming authority—the Secretary of State—for confirmation in accordance with part 2 of the 1981 Act. Amendment 280 would require the order to be submitted to the acquiring authority also. The amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate because the compulsory purchase order will have been made by the acquiring authority and submitted to the confirming authority. There is therefore no need or purpose for the order to be submitted back to the acquiring authority.
Section 2(2) of the 1981 Act is about the submission phase, not the decision phase. Part 2 of the 1981 Act concerns the decision phase. The compulsory purchase decision phase must comply with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which means that the decision on an order needs to be made by an independent and impartial tribunal. The current process, whereby the confirming authority makes its decision, after the affected parties have had the opportunity to make objections and have them heard by an inspector, ensures a fair and impartial process that is article 6 compliant. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will consider her proposal unnecessary and inappropriate. I invite her to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The LGA and the councils clearly feel strongly about the issue because they are asking for changes to be made. I hear what the Minister says about ensuring a degree of independent adjudication, and it would help if he could indicate whether he will keep talking to the LGA about how its concerns might be better addressed in the current system. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 119, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 120
Time limits for notice to treat or general vesting declaration
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 259, in clause 120, page 57, line 36, leave out “made” and insert “executed”.
This amendment, together with amendments 260, 261, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276 and 277, amends references to a general vesting declaration so that they are consistent with the terminology of section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (although “make” and “execute” mean the same thing).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 260, 261 and 272 to 277.
Mr Jones
This series of amendments, starting in clause 120, all do the same thing. They change the terminology from “made” to “executed” in reference to a general vesting declaration. Although such a declaration is “made” when it has been “executed”, and hence the words mean the same, section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 uses “executed” and we think, therefore, that it will help all parties involved in compulsory purchase if we are consistent throughout.
Amendment 259 agreed to.
Clause 120, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7
Notice of general vesting declaration procedure
Amendments made: 273, in schedule 7, page 91, line 26, leave out “made” and insert “executed”.
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Amendment 272, in schedule 7, page 91, line 12, leave out “made” and insert “executed”. —(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 122 to 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clauses 128 to 130 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 131
Power to make and timing of advance payment
Amendments made: 260, in clause 131, page 63, line 4, leave out “made a” and insert “executed a general”.
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Amendment 261, in clause 131, page 63, line 21, leave out “make a” and insert “execute a general”. —(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Clause 131, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 132 and 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 134
Objection to division of land
Dr Blackman-Woods
The clause relates to objections relating to the division of land, and I have a question for the Minister. If an objection to the taking of only part of the land is served by a landowner, the project for which powers of compulsory purchase have been granted is likely to come to a halt until the landowner’s desire to have the entirety of the interest acquired has been resolved either by agreement or by the Lands Chamber. This can create a situation in which the landowner can hold the intended project to ransom on account of the likely delay to the project, given the delay in resolving the issue in the Lands Chamber, which can often amount to a year or a number of years if the issue is particularly complex. Does the Minister think the measures in the clause will help in that situation? Will they help to provide a remedy that speeds up resolution of problems that emerge when there is a division of land or land is split in some way? If the Minister thinks that it does, will he explain to the Committee how?
Mr Jones
It will probably help if I explain clause 134, which introduces schedules 9 and 10, which contain a dispute resolution procedure where material detriment has been alleged. This may arise when only a part of a claimant’s land is required by the acquiring authority. Schedule 9 applies when a notice to treat has been served and schedule 10 applies following the execution of a general vesting declaration. It may help the Committee if I briefly outline the concept of material detriment.
Some projects, such as roads, may require only part of someone’s land, and that will be the land included in the compulsory purchase order. The taking of land and the nature of the project will have differing effects depending on the nature of the remaining land. Material detriment arises where the claimant’s retained land would be less useful or less valuable to a significant degree. If the claimant thinks that taking part of the land will cause material detriment to a house, building or factory, including part of a garden or park belonging to the house, he or she can serve a counter-notice, which can then be referred to the upper tribunal for determination.
The procedure for claiming material detriment differs depending on whether an acquiring authority serves a notice to treat or executes a general vesting declaration. The intention in the Bill is to harmonise the two procedures as far as possible. That goes some way to simplifying the process by giving both parties a greater understanding of the process, and giving a better steer to the courts in relation to making sure that the procedure is harmonised for when both systems are used.
Paragraph 3 of schedule 9 inserts new schedule 2A into the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. This sets out the procedure for serving a counter-notice requiring the purchase of land, not the notice to treat, and its subsequent determination. Among the procedural details are three important points. First, the acquiring authority is permitted to enter the land that it wants and to get on with its scheme where the counter-notice has been referred to the tribunal. That is set out in paragraph 11 of new schedule 2A, referred to in paragraph 5(b). Secondly, if the acquiring authority does that, there is no going back, as it will be compelled to take the remainder of the land if the tribunal finds in favour of the claimant. That is the effect of paragraph 21(1)(c) of the new schedule 2A, which allows the acquiring authority to withdraw its notice to treat only if it has not yet entered on and taken possession of the land. Thirdly, if the tribunal requires all or some more of the remaining land to be taken, the claimant will be compensated for any losses caused by the temporary severance of the land where the authority has already entered part of it. For example, if part of a claimant’s business premises is taken, he or she may incur trading losses over and above those that would have occurred had the land been taken in the first instance. That is provided for in paragraph 26(5) of new schedule 2A.
Among the consequential amendments in part 2 of schedule 9 is a new feature of the material detriment regime. Paragraph 9 inserts a new section 2A into the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 that allows acquiring authorities to disapply the material detriment provisions for land that is 9 metres or more below the surface. That provision will prevent spurious claims for material detriment from owners of land above tunnels where the works will have no discernible effect on the land. Provisions of that nature are common in hybrid Acts, such as the Crossrail Act 2008.
Schedule 10 provides a similar counter-notice procedure where material detriment is claimed following the execution of a general vesting declaration under the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981. I commend clause 134 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 134 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9
Objection to division of land following notice to treat
Amendments made: 274, in schedule 9, page 94, line 5, leave out “made” and insert “executed”.
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Amendment 275, in schedule 9, page 95, line 36, leave out “made” and insert “executed”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10
Objection to division of land following vesting declaration
Amendments made: 276, in schedule 10, page 103, line 9, leave out “made” and insert “executed”.
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Amendment 277, in schedule 10, page 103, line 22, leave out “made” and insert “executed”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s statement for amendment 259.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 135 and 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 137
Power to override easements and other rights
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 262, in clause 137, page 66, line 39, after “authority” insert “, or
(ii) been appropriated by a local authority for planning purposes as defined by section 246(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990”.
This amendment, together with amendment 264, would mean that the power to override easements and other rights in clause 137 applied to land which a local authority already held prior to the coming into force of clause 137 but only appropriated for planning purposes after the coming into force of that clause.
Mr Jones
This group of amendments contains mainly transitional provisions and drafting improvements. With your permission, Mr Gray, before I explain what they all do I will set out the purpose of clauses 137 to 139 to put them into context.
Regeneration and redevelopment projects will, almost by definition, take place on previously developed land. To ensure that there are no impediments to the proposed regeneration, it may be necessary to deal with restrictive covenants and easements that affect the land acquired. The Law Commission has found that there are easements over at least 65% of registered freehold titles. Those third-party interests are typically rights to allow the underground services—for example, water, gas, electricity and telecommunications—of one property to pass beneath the land of neighbouring properties. There are also rights of light, rights of way and covenants restricting development to certain uses or density.
The statutory power to override such easements and covenants for both the construction and use of development is currently restricted to local planning authorities and regeneration agencies such as the Homes and Communities Agency and urban development corporations. New town development corporations and housing action trusts also have that power, but there are none in existence at present. One important aspect of the power is that it devolves to subsequent purchasers of the land without the local authority or agency having to do the development itself. It is therefore an important feature of town centre redevelopment schemes where local planning authorities acquire land and sell it on to their developer partner.
Not all development schemes are undertaken on land held for planning purposes or acquired by regeneration agencies. The Government have therefore decided to extend the power to override the easements and other rights to all bodies with compulsory purchase powers. Clause 137 contains that power, which will be available in respect of land acquired by or vested in a specified authority, as defined by subsection (7), when the provision comes into force.
It may help the Committee if I describe the amendments in sub-groups. Amendments 262 and 264 are transitional provisions to enable local planning authorities to do in the future what they can do now. At the moment, land not held for planning purposes may be appropriated for planning purposes to benefit from the power to override easements in section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Clause 137(2)(b) does not provide for appropriation of land, so without the amendments, land already held for other purposes could never benefit from clause 137, even though land newly acquired for the same purpose after commencement could do so. That is clearly not a desired outcome, so amendments 262 and 264 take us to the right place.
Amendments 263, 266 and 269 are the main transitional provisions. Amendments 263 and 266 extend the provisions to other qualifying land, which is defined in amendment 269 as land that is or has been owned by those bodies that already have the power to override easements and other rights. The effect is that those bodies will be able to exercise the new power in clause 137 on that land instead of their existing powers, which will be removed by schedule 11 to the Bill.
Amendment 265 is a substantive amendment. Clause 137(4)(c) states that the power to override easements and so on applies to the use of land where the authority could have purchased the land compulsorily to construct or erect any building for that use. That is too limiting, as some uses do not require a building to be constructed, such as a carpark or landscaping. Amendment 265 therefore extends that provision so that it refers to the carrying out of any works for the use in question.
Amendments 267 and 271 are consequential to the motion to split clause 137 into two clauses. Clause 137 will be unwieldy once the definitions in subsection (7) have been extended by the definition of “other qualifying land” in amendment 269. The motion will therefore split clause 137, with its substantive provisions in subsections (1) to (6) and the new clause containing the definitions in subsections (7) and (8).
Amendments 268 and 270 regularise the definition of local authority in the provisions. Amendments 262, 264 and 269 introduce references to a local authority’s planning purposes. The list of authorities that are local authorities for those purposes is not the same as the general definition of “local authority” in subsection (7). In the future, we only need a general definition in the context of a specified authority, also defined in subsection (7). Amendment 268 therefore removes the now superfluous general definition of “local authority” and amendment 270 places the definition within that of a specified authority.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for carefully taking us through the amendments and for answering one of my questions already, but there are a couple of others which I will deal with quickly.
It does make a lot of sense to split the clause in the way the Government suggest. The clause gives acquiring authorities a power to override rights in land following compulsory purchase, similar to provisions in section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which allows planning authorities to override easements and other rights in land following compulsory purchase or in seeking to develop its own land to another purpose. If the land is subject to rights benefiting other persons, such as a right of way or a restrictive covenant, the right can be overridden and development carried out even if the right would be breached. Provision is made for the payment of compensation, but the quantum of compensation is limited to the diminution in value to the interest in land that benefited from the right. There is no provision for recovery of other losses, such as loss of business income, arising as a consequence of the overriding.
I was going to ask the Minister whether the amendment would specifically look at land already held by local authorities that is intended to be appropriated and developed in future, but he answered that question directly. However, are the provisions for compensation sufficient to compensate for losses, particularly for lost profits, and are they compatible with article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights?
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Diminution of value is how the system works under current compulsory purchase powers. The provisions are designed to extend the existing powers to other bodies with compulsory purchase powers, not to amend them. I hope that that answers her question.
Amendment 262 agreed to.
Amendments made: 263, in clause 137, page 66, line 41, at end insert—
‘( ) Subsection (1) also applies to building or maintenance work where—
(a) there is planning consent for the building or maintenance work,
(b) the work is carried out on other qualifying land, and
(c) specified authority could acquire the land compulsorily for the purposes of the building or maintenance work.’
Schedule 11 removes a number of existing powers to override easements. This amendment, together with amendments 266, 267, 268, 269 and 271, would mean that the new power in clause 137 could be exercised instead of the powers removed by Schedule 11.
Amendment 264, in clause 137, page 67, line 6, after ‘authority’ insert
‘, or
(ii) been appropriated by a local authority for planning purposes as defined by section 246(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990’.
See member’s explanatory statement for amendment 262.
Amendment 265, in clause 137, page 67, line 8, after ‘building’ insert
‘, or carrying out any works,’.
Clause 137(4)(c) limits the power in clause 137(3) to use land despite existing easements or restrictions so that it may be exercised only when a specified authority could acquire land compulsorily for the purpose of erecting or constructing any building for the use in question. This amendment would adjust the restriction in clause 137(4)(c) so that it is not limited to erecting or constructing a building but includes carrying out any works.
Amendment 266, in clause 137, page 67, line 8, at end insert—
‘( ) Subsection (3) also applies to the use of land in a case where—
(a) there is planning consent for that use of the land,
(b) the land is other qualifying land, and
(c) specified authority could acquire the land compulsorily for the purposes of erecting or constructing any building, or carrying out any works, for that use.’
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 263.
Amendment 267, in clause 137, page 67, line 15, leave out ‘In this section’ and insert
‘In sections 137 and 138’.
The changes that would be introduced by amendments 263, 266, 269 and 271 would add considerably to the length of clause 137. This amendment, together with the motion after amendment 270, would prevent clause 137 becoming too long by removing the interpretation subsection from that clause and putting it into its own clause.
Amendment 268, in clause 137, page 67, leave out lines 18 and 19.
Amendments 262, 264 and 269 would introduce references to a local authority’s planning purposes as defined by section 246(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The list of authorities that are local authorities for those purposes is different from the list that are local authorities for the purposes of the definition of “specified authority” in clause 137. This amendment and amendment 270 therefore remove the general definition of “local authority” and define the term “local authority” only in relation to the term “specified authority”.
Amendment 269, in clause 137, page 67, line 19, at end insert—
‘“other qualifying land” means land in England and Wales that has at any time before the day on which this section comes into force been—
(a) acquired by the National Assembly for Wales or the Welsh Ministers under section 21A of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975;
(b) vested in or acquired by an urban development corporation or a local highway authority for the purposes of Part 16 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980;
(c) acquired by a development corporation or a local highway authority for the purposes of the New Towns Act 1981;
(d) vested in or acquired by a housing action trust for the purposes of Part 3 of the Housing Act 1988;
(e) acquired or appropriated by a local authority for planning purposes as defined by section 246(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
(f) vested in or acquired by the Homes and Communities Agency, apart from land the freehold interest in which was disposed of by the Agency before 12 April 2015;
(g) vested in or acquired by the Greater London Authority for the purposes of housing or regeneration, apart from land the freehold interest in which was disposed of before 12 April 2015—
(h) vested in or acquired by a Mayoral development corporation (established under section 198(2) of the Localism Act 2011), apart from land the freehold interest in which was disposed of by the corporation before 12 April 2015.’
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 263.
Amendment 270, in clause 137, page 67, line 38, after ‘authority’ insert
‘as defined by section 7 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981’.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 268.
Ordered,
That Clause No. 137 be divided into two clauses, the first (Power to override easements and other rights) consisting of subsections (1) to (6) and the second (Interpretation of sections 137 and 138) to consist of subsections (7) and (8).—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Clauses 137A and 137B, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 138
Compensation for overridden easements etc
Amendment made: 271, in clause 138, page 68, line 14, leave out subsection (5).—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 263.
Clause 138, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11
Amendments to do with sections 137 and 138
Mr Jones
I beg to move amendment 278, in schedule 11, page 107, line 5, at end insert—
‘Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 (c. 70)
A1 (1) Schedule 4 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit paragraph 6 and the italic heading before it.
(3) In paragraph 9 omit sub-paragraph (a).’
This amendment would repeal paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975. The provision to be repealed is a power to override easements in certain circumstances. The power would in future be exercisable under clause 137, as amended by amendment 269.
Amendment 278 adds paragraph 6 of schedule 4 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 to the list of repeal provisions in schedule 11 to the Bill, meaning that the power to override easements and other rights currently exercised under the Act will in future be exercised under clause 137, as now amended.
Amendment 278 agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 140 to 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 144
Commencement
Brandon Lewis
Mr Gray, the Government are not moving amendment 279 at this stage. We want to consider the matter further and come back on Report.
The Chair
The amendment is not moved.
Clause 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 145 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julian Smith.)