Adult Social Care

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

I add my voice to all those who have welcomed you back to the Chair in recent days, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. It has been a good debate that has highlighted some of the challenges, and demonstrated some of the opportunities in this area. I am particularly grateful to my near neighbour and Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). We do not agree on everything, but he had a long and illustrious history in local government before he joined this place, and since then he has taken a significant interest in this subject. I am grateful to him for introducing the debate in such an even-handed manner.

As all those who have spoken today have indicated, this is an important area of policy for a variety of reasons. That is why there is such close working between the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Department of Health and Social Care, given the importance of the issue, the need to get it right, and the need to continue to make progress on some of the challenges that have been highlighted. We have also worked closely to ensure some of the achievements that have come forward in recent years. As hon. Members will know, policy is largely within the Department of Health and Social Care and the funding process, via the local government finance settlement, is within the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

I will try to answer the questions as best I can on all the elements that have been raised today. Colleagues raised a substantial number of points that fall into three broad buckets: first, where we are; secondly, where we are going; and thirdly, what we do about the long term. I will take those three points in turn.

First, there is no disagreement across the House that there are challenges, and that there have been difficulties on both a macro level and across government and society as a whole. There are also challenges within adult social care. More broadly, over the past 20 years, under Governments of all parties, we have seen changing demographics. It is great that more people are living longer, but that creates challenges for whoever is on the Treasury Bench to ensure that the Government support people to the extent that they can. There is often greater acuity with individuals in the system, and more have multiple conditions. More broadly, in recent years and despite valiant attempts by the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) to gloss over them, we have received the challenges of inflation, of external events and of covid, all of which have created issues across the Government. A mature debate will recognise and acknowledge those challenges, and seek to build on them and resolve them over time.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East is correct to say that funding has been much questioned over the past 13 years, and we will all have different views on that. The issue has been much discussed since 2010, just as the reasons behind decisions that were taken between 2010 and now have been much discussed. I will not detain the House by repeating those reasons, other than to say that we know them, and that they are at least anchored in a set of decisions that were taken before 2010. It is also important to acknowledge—I hope hon. Members will do this—that significant additional funding has gone in and is going in over the remainder of the spending review period, with £2 billion of additional grants in 2023-24, and nearly £1.5 billion of additional funding in 2024-25. Money is not everything, but ultimately there is a recognition in all parts of the House that there are challenges with adult social care, and more money has gone in.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about the way we fund. Although I accept challenges from right hon. and hon. Members about the right balance, I hope we can agree within our discourse that it is reasonable and proportionate for us to have both funding provided centrally and an element of local funding, not least so that there is linkage between how organisations and local councils decide to spend that money in the locality and how they raise it. As I say, I accept that there are different views about what the proportions should be, but I hope that future discussion of this issue acknowledges the reality and appropriateness of that balance.

Although I am trying not to be too political, it is important to note that some of the challenges have been in place over recent years because there has been a challenge with Government funding over the course of 13 years. We have been trying to keep taxes down for people when we are able to do so. It is important to note that council tax more than doubled under the last Labour Government, and we have spent a significant amount of time and effort in the local government system since 2010 making sure that increases are as low as they can be.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister is talking about the balance between funding being found locally and funding from central Government grant. The issue I have outlined is that it would be unreasonable for a local authority to have to find something like £1 million extra. I have talked about placements for people with learning disabilities or autistic people that can cost up to that. That cost is being borne by the NHS, yet it could be much lower if the person had suitable housing found for them in the community. It is not reasonable to expect a local authority suddenly to find a large amount of money if a case comes up. Together with colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care, will the Minister look at the idea of a dowry that I put forward, so that people do not have to spend 10, 20 or 30 years in horrible NHS institutions that are often far from home and unsuitable? This is just a logistical problem about where the money is, and it seems that of all the problems we could solve, this is one we should be doing something about.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I will come to her points in a moment.

I acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) made about rurality, which is one reason why it is important that there is a balanced understanding that some funding is raised locally. Different parts of the country will have different requirements, pressures and challenges, which, in many parts of the country, will include rurality. I accept that that creates an issue in certain places. From a local government perspective, rather than an adult social care perspective, we have tried to acknowledge that, at least in part, in the local government finance settlement through the rural services delivery grant. I am always happy to look at that and to talk to my colleagues in more detail, as we prepare for funding settlements in future years.

[Selaine Saxby]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that in massive counties such as Devon, outside the urban south, the very rural hinterland causes variance from the average, and that top-tier authorities should have much more leverage to offer settlements with a far greater differential between rural and urban areas?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I certainly acknowledge that there are differences in individual circumstances between rural areas, urban areas, and suburban and near-rural areas, one of which I have the privilege to represent in Derbyshire. The finance settlement seeks to acknowledge that to some extent. As I will come to in a moment, we are also introducing Oflog—the office for local government—which will seek to understand how councils spend the money they receive or raise, so that we can understand the differences that occur around the country and also how people choose to make decisions arising from those differences.

Let me come to the second point, which is where we are going.

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Lee Rowley]

If I may make a little more progress, I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

I recognise the points that have been made about reform. I note that the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and others highlighted the importance of looking at how we can continue to improve adult social care in the round and over time, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his work in the all-party parliamentary group on adult social care in that regard. I also note the broader questions of what we do over the long term, over many years and decades, and some of the issues that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) highlighted, and also the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) about the importance of carers, which I absolutely acknowledge. I will certainly pass back to my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care all the policy points, which absolutely have been heard today.

Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and the hon. Member for Sheffield South East highlighted alternatives, and mentioned Japan and supplements. Decisions about how best to fund the system are long-standing and challenging, and there are always alternatives; I hope it will be recognised that the Government have tried to resolve some of the issues through changes and proposed reforms over the last couple of years, even if they are later than originally intended. There is acute difficulty and challenge in reforming this area, and successive Governments of different colours have been unable to do what many people would like to happen, yet we are determined as a Government to get it right. I hope we have demonstrated progress—both in the short term through further amounts of funding, and through the reforms we proposed a couple of years ago—and we will continue to try to do that.

[Mr Betts]

I thank the Minister for giving way; his further comments were quite helpful because they lead on to the intervention I was going to make, which comes back to local funding for social care. The joint report by the two Select Committees in 2018 said:

“There should be a continuation for the foreseeable future of the existing local government revenue streams.”

That was accepted, but we went on to say, very clearly, that a new source of funding is needed for social care to recognise the gaps that exist. Does the Minister accept in principle that the Government must come up with a new, discrete source of funding for social care? The Government sort of got there two years ago, then backed off. Are they going to come back to that at some point?

[Lee Rowley]

As I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, substantial additional funding has gone into the system. I am always happy to discuss the best way that that should be structured—obviously that is a multi-departmental discussion—but I hope there is an acknowledgement that additional funding has gone into the system and continues to go in. The additional information given in our announcements about the remainder of the spending review, over the coming financial year and the year after, demonstrates our commitment to do that. We hope that will have a positive impact on the challenges that have been articulated.

Finally, I want to talk about the long term, which hon. Members from across the House raised in their speeches. We acknowledge that there is a desire, and it is important to try to plan for the long term. We will bring forward a plan for adult social care reform in the spring. I hope that will answer some of the questions that hon. and right hon. Members have raised and assuage some of their concerns locally. To answer the challenge from the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) about a long-term settlement for councils, while some of the long-term nature of that is debatable, I hope that the broader policy statement, which the Government announced several weeks ago with the local government finance settlement, demonstrates our intent to move forward with a longer-term understanding of what councils can expect to receive from Government, where we are able to do that. As I have highlighted, in the long term we are also seeking to introduce new elements to government, such as the office for local government, which hopefully will provide information not just about what is happening, but information that explains in more detail how local government is spending that money.

[Helen Morgan]

rose—

[Lee Rowley]

I have detained the House, but I will be happy to give way briefly.

[Helen Morgan]

I am grateful to the Minister. The point about long-term funding is so important. Until a couple of weeks ago, care providers in Shropshire did not know by how much their rates would increase in the new financial year, and they were considering handing their contracts back. It would have cost the council a fortune just to find someone who was willing to fulfil some of those care packages. Councils need long-term funding for their own financial stability and to find care packages at an achievable cost.

[Lee Rowley]

I am happy to confirm that the Government are trying, where we are able, to offer greater visibility of what is coming and greater long-term understanding. We will continue to try to do that across the local government finance settlement, and I hope this policy statement is an indication of that.

[Sarah Owen]

I appreciate the Minister’s generosity in giving way, and I completely agree on the kind of long-term futures that we talking about for local government, yet we are 23 days away from local authorities setting their budgets and they have still had no indication about their public health grants. If we are going to treat local authorities with respect on healthcare, surely they should be given that well in advance.

[Lee Rowley]

I know that my colleagues across Government will be working hard to get the final elements of the settlement out as soon as possible, but I hope the hon. Lady will acknowledge that, on the basis of my conversations with local government over the past few weeks, there is a recognition that the settlement has provided a good level of funds, that it will be moving in a positive direction and that it provides the stability and greater certainty that local government has requested and that we have responded to as a Government.

To conclude, I again thank the hon. Member for Sheffield South East for instigating and opening this debate. I also thank everybody outside this place who supports adult social care. It is an extraordinarily important part of local government and the state’s activities in general. As has been outlined in this debate, we need to support the most vulnerable and those in need, irrespective of age or condition. Through the changes that are coming in the new financial year, we are trying to provide additional funds, support and taxpayer subsidy to do that, and to ensure that local government can continue to build and improve for the long term in such an important policy area.

Ballot Secrecy Bill [ Lords ]

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr McCabe.

I thank the noble Lord Hayward for sponsoring this important Bill in the other place and I congratulate him on securing its swift progress through to its Commons stages. I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough on his work in this area and on the case he made for the Bill this morning, which was very good and a handy way to start the discussion.

This is a short but important Bill for the integrity of our elections and our democracy more widely. As was covered during debates in the other place—they are very much worth a read, and it was helpful that the hon. Gentleman brought them into this debate, because some of those contributions were excellent—it is crucial that our democratic process is free from abuse and intimidation. That was the spirit of the 1872 Act, 151 years ago, which curtailed many of the terrible practices that occurred in elections before its passing. As was explained in the other place, however, a clear and identifiable problem remains with the Act as it stands: it does not give presiding officers the right tools to tackle the problem of people being compelled to vote one way, or not at all, by others.

It is unacceptable that such practices still occur. The intimidation of voters is contrary to all our democratic principles, but the law as it stands lacks clarity on the matter. That has been acknowledged by the Electoral Commission, which it is helpful to note. There is therefore clearly a case for changing the legislation and making such practices an offence. The Bill will do exactly that.

I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood about a bigger piece of work to consolidate our electoral law in one place. The Law Commission report is a good starter. Those points were well made, and I share them.

Important reassurances were given in the other place—I am sure the Minister will reiterate them—about disabled voters continuing to have any assistance they need to vote, where necessary. That practice, which is right and proper, will not be impacted by the Bill. Last week, I took part in an event—as did the Minister—organised by the My Vote My Voice campaign, which aims to improve participation in voting by adults with learning disabilities and/or autism.

I have had similar such conversations about voting with people with Usher syndrome, those who are deaf and blind more generally, and those who are blind. They all say the same thing: they want hurdles to voting lowered so that they can vote with greater confidence. Happily, the provisions in the Bill do not impair that, but there is something to be said for going above and beyond the Bill, building out from it to ensure that the right technologies are available or that there is staff training. The hon. Member for Peterborough also talked about staff training and how—including under the Elections Act 2022—there should be more training on how to ensure that people living with disabilities can vote independently. We would not then have to worry about another person being there, because the assistive technologies are there—those exist, and that is what such electors want. I hope we build out from this legislation in that way.

To conclude, it is important that we have good, strong law in this area, to provide a clear understanding of what is and what is not acceptable practice at a polling station. The Opposition support the Bill and look forward to its timely passing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.

I am pleased to say that the Government also support the Bill, which is being sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. We are grateful for his efforts and work in this regard. I join him in paying tribute to Lord Hayward, who has been an absolute stalwart in pushing forward this important agenda and ensuring that the Bill is before us today. He is joined in the Public Gallery by a number of others with interests in this area, including Councillor Tanner and Councillor Peter Golds.

My hon. Friend’s Bill arises from concerns over so-called family voting, which we have discussed, which is when family members or others accompany voters into a polling booth in a polling station for the apparent purpose of influencing or guiding how they cast their vote. The Government share the concerns expressed about the issue and we are committed to safeguarding our democracy against those who would harm it. That is why we are supporting the Bill.

I will run through the clauses briefly, but I do not seek to detain the Committee for too long. Clause 1 makes a number of important changes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough explained, it outlines that a person commits an offence if they are with a voter in a polling booth, or near it, but it also sets out the reasons why people would not be committing an offence in appropriate instances, which have already been outlined—with those who need assistance or are disabled.

As the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, both of us in the past few days have been to events—I am grateful to him for supporting and helping to organise an event last week—at which the importance of greater participation and greater involvement in the democratic process was clear. Those events aim to encourage and support those who need additional assistance, which is a vital part of the electoral system, although we must also ensure that we can do the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough is requiring under the Bill.

I hope the hon. Gentleman can see some of the changes that are being introduced in May, particularly with regard to people with sight loss and trying to provide a greater range of options and technology to support them, as a step forward and part of that broad agenda.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I certainly support the good intentions of the Bill, but I seek clarification. How would election officials—returning officers—demarcate somebody who was going about their normal business? I know this will be reflected across the Committee Room, but if my wife and son came along, quite innocently, when I was voting and we went our separate ways, how would that natural family event be demarcated from somebody coercing or applying undue influence at the ballot box?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments because he raises an important point, which is: how will we interpret the legislation? Clause 3, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough has outlined, provides that additional guidance will need to be put in place to give greater clarity for those who are running individual polling booths. That might not be their day job, and they might come from another part of a local authority and might be taking part in only that one electoral event, so it is right that there will be interpretation and guidance with respect to the Bill. It will be for the Electoral Commission and others to provide that as part of the overall process. Hence, clause 3 outlines the approach we suggest.

Before I come to clause 3, let me refer to clause 2.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

When the Government produce that guidance, would it not make sense for it to say that when two adults were going to a polling booth together, they would need to be doing so in circumstances whereby they were, for example, giving assistance to a disabled person? Therefore, the presumption would be that everyone should go separately, rather than there being a need to prove intent, because it is always difficult to know what is going on in someone else’s mind.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her suggestion. This exchange is highlighting some of the challenges around the level of prescription that needs to be in the process versus the level of discretion. That is one reason that we legislate in this place and a separate body provides interpretation.

The ultimate decision about whether things are appropriate or not appropriate in individual polling booths is down to the presiding officer in that polling booth. Presiding officers will take decisions based on the law and the guidance around the law, and the situation on the ground. I have been the elections Minister for only a few months, but I can see that there is an incredible amount of legislation and guidance in this area. That legislation and guidance provide significant prescription—it is important that there is consistency and clarity across the country when electoral events happen—but equally, guidance can never provide every piece of information for every scenario.

I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and will feed it into our consideration, but it will be for the Electoral Commission to provide guidance and further information.

[Cat Smith]

The Minister will be glad to hear that the interventions have inspired another question from me. Will he confirm that the guidance is to be drawn up by the Electoral Commission? If so, the commission will be guided or influenced by the Hansard report of the Committee’s proceedings and the conversations we have had. However, after listening to the interventions that have been made from both sides of the Committee, it strikes me that a lot of pressure is being put on returning officers to interpret events. The Law Commission has been clear in its reports that the pressure on returning officers is increasing and the guidance is increasingly fragmented. We might be reaching a point at which the Elections Act is going to add to those complications.

Does the Minister have any concerns that encouraging people to be returning officers might be a challenge going forward, given their legal responsibilities, and the pressures of applying the law and interpreting events in polling stations? Indeed, I was not registered to vote at the last polling station I went to; I went with my partner. There were elections in Scotland and none in my part of England at the time. I think I jokingly said to him, “Vote Labour.” Can the Minster clarify that would not be a breach of the law? I am quite confident that he did not go and vote Labour.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments; she raises an important point. The guidance will be drawn up by the Electoral Commission in the normal way. As part of that process, there will be opportunities for people, including from outside this Committee, to make their views known. Ensuring that there are sufficient people to support both local and general elections is a long-term challenge within local government. Finding people to staff polling stations has been a general challenge for a number of years.

I have been talking to the Association of Electoral Administrators about the issue, and I spoke with Solace—the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives—only last Thursday. My colleagues and I will continue to do that. There are several challenges, but we are also looking at alternatives and ways to mitigate those issues. Local authorities are putting a huge amount of work into the preparations for May to ensure that the right number of staff is available, whether they are employed by the individual local authority or elsewhere in the normal way.

I hope that the guidance will provide clarity on some of those examples. I am a relatively smaller-state Conservative, but I recognise that, in certain parts of the law, it is important that there is sufficient proscription about what is happening. There should be sufficient clarity on the guidance, and enough consistency around the country for there to be no suggestion of a problem. I am sure that the Electoral Commission will read Hansard and take note of the hon. Lady’s point.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough indicated, clause 2 will ensure that the provisions cover Northern Ireland as well as England, given that elections are excepted matters. We have already talked about clause 3 to some extent. It will give the Government the opportunity to set out the day or days on which the regulations will come into force. That is what we talked about a moment ago with regard to guidance, clarification and ensuring consistency underneath the legislation, with time to work through the process.

I turn to a couple of additional points that have not been addressed so far. In her initial intervention, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood talked about postal votes. She will be aware that there are further changes coming in under the Elections Act 2022. They will require, for example, people to reapply for postal votes every three years. I hope she can see that there is tightening going on in this place.

The Government will always look at other challenges, issues and opportunities going forward. As the hon. Lady outlined, there is a long-standing desire on the part of the Law Commission to look at how we can make this area more clearcut. The Government will continue to discuss it, and I hope that in time we can move in that direction. I know the hon. Lady will accept that this is a significant piece of work, and we need to think it through, as and when that may be appropriate.

Finally, on the point made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough indicated, there have been discussions with the devolved Administrations, although I am happy to provide separate information outside this Committee to answer the hon. Member’s specific question.

This is an important area of policy and an important proposal. Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough on bringing the Bill forward and I look forward to it going on the statute book. As we have all indicated, both in this Committee and previously, clarification of the law in this area is important. That is why the Government are supporting the Bill, and I urge other Members to do so.

[Paul Bristow]

I do not want to talk for too long, but I will say a few words of thanks to close. I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord Hayward and my personal admiration for him and the way he has pushed through this Bill. I also thank Councillor Tanner, who has been a source of advice and support on this, and thank all colleagues for serving on this Bill Committee, as well as the officials. Particular thanks go to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, who was one of the first to volunteer for this Committee. She shares my passion for these issues.

I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. The hon. Members for Caerphilly and for Weaver Vale, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made interesting points. I thank the shadow Minister, who made a good and powerful speech. The cross-party nature with which the Bill has been taken through Parliament shows this place at its best. We can produce good legislation when we all work together. Finally, I thank the Minister and the officials from his Department. This legislation is incredibly important. Today, we are upholding the integrity of our democracy.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Leaseholders and Managing Agents

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

Thank you for the opportunity to talk about this hugely important topic today, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on securing the debate. We have covered a significant amount of ground. I am not sure that I can do justice to the issue in the seven or eight minutes that I have if I am to allow the hon. Member a few moments to comment at the end, but I will try to cover as much as I can.

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed. As hon. Members will know, there is a significant overlap between the people who are in the Chamber today and those who have stood up for their constituents and taken their concerns to the Department over the last few months. As hon. Members will know, we have been in correspondence on a number of occasions, and I am grateful to them for highlighting issues, particularly in my part of the portfolio, around building safety, in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I am grateful for their time and the efforts that they go to on behalf of their constituents in both those areas.

We have discussed two broad areas today. One is the broader situation with regard to leasehold and the reforms that are coming in, and the other is the more specific question of building safety. I will try to take those in two buckets, if I may, then talk about some of the specific points that hon. Members have raised. As numerous hon. Members have highlighted, we made a series of commitments from 2018 onwards on leasehold in general. Reform in this area is necessary, is important and needs to happen. That covers a number of things raised by the hon. Member for Brent North, and other matters.

As my predecessor, the noble Lord Greenhalgh, indicated, the Government have committed to abolishing marriage value at the earliest possible opportunity. On service charge transparency, the Secretary of State has highlighted the fact that we are absolutely committed to providing more information, for exactly that reasons that the hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) indicated: the importance of transparency in those discussions, so that people know what they are paying for when they are given bills and charges.

I have heard the comments about managing agents. We recognise that, as in all systems, particularly ones where there are multiple individuals and entities involved, there are people who are exemplars and who do things well, there are people who do things less well, and there are people who do things badly. It is important that we call out bad practice and we take the opportunities where we can and where it is proportionate and reasonable to do so, both now and in the future, to be able to reduce the propensity for bad practice. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will make that clear when we bring forward more information about our proposed leasehold reforms in due course.

In answer to the questions raised by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), while I cannot anticipate what will be in the package, we are committed to bringing forward those reforms. We have said that we want to undertake reform in this Parliament. There is still time to do that and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will provide more information in due course, when he is able to do so.

[Andy Carter]

This is a brief intervention. I have invited many of my hon. Friend’s predecessors to Warrington South. None have made it, because they have not been in position for long enough to get there. May I extend an invitation to him to come and meet some of the leaseholders who are facing problems in Warrington South, so that he can hear directly from them before the final piece of legislation is put forward?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind invitation to the north-west. I will speak to the Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who has been in post for a couple of weeks, because she is taking forward these specific points on leasehold and I want to ensure the right conversations are had with the right people.

I will respond to a few points on building safety, for which I am responsible in the Department; I am happy and keen to hear more about the issues that have been raised. Important points about significant increases in insurance were made, which we recognise and understand. The Association of British Insurers was asked to look at the issue a number of months ago and find a solution. I meet the Association on a regular basis—I did so most recently at the end of last week—and I will continue to do so. We hope that it will be able to bring forward a scheme on insurance in the coming months.

There was reference to lending. I hope hon. Members are starting to see a change with regard to building safety. I met all six big lenders before Christmas and we have come to an agreement with them through UK Finance. The market should now start to become more functional and successful again. I am receiving data from each of the banks on a regular basis—indeed, just a couple of days ago, I looked at the data I received from Santander and Barclays—in order to understand what is going on and how we can separate out, as much as we are able, the challenges that are known, understood and need to be remediated over a number of years, so that people can live their lives and get on with making choices about where and how they want to live. I welcome views from hon. Members in the months ahead about whether they have seen those changes.

I am conscious that I need to conclude in about two minutes. On building safety, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) has been a stalwart; I give him huge credit for making progress on the issue with colleagues across the House, irrespective of their party. He made a vital point about lived experience; people have seen this, lived it and breathed it for many years. As the responsible Minister, I have tried to make visits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), who is no longer in his place, indicated, I visited Cardinal Lofts and spoke to residents. I went to Wicker Riverside in Sheffield within a few weeks of becoming Minister, talking to leaseholders and people who were at the forefront; I appreciate the challenge and difficulty they face. That is reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is keen that we make progress. From the work we are doing on Vista Tower, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage will know how important it is for us to call out bad behaviour and for us to make progress.

Finally, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) raised a case where charges have increased exponentially. Without knowing any of the detail, I would be very happy to receive additional information on that. I would be very happy, in principle, to come and visit, or to speak to those leaseholders. It is important, as a Minister, and for the Department, that we look at the macro level, at the changes and how that is occurring, and check that it is working in individual areas, so I would be very happy to see more information on that.

To conclude, these are hugely important issues that affect people’s lives, so I absolutely appreciate the points that have been made regarding both leaseholds and the reforms needed in general. I understand the urgency, and I hope that we can say something more corporately on that soon, particularly on building safety. We need to make progress on remediation, on top of the good progress that we have already made, but there is a long way to go. While I am in post, I am committed to trying to make as much progress as possible so that the people who are affected can get on with living their lives again, as we all want them to.

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2023 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I realise that this is the big issue before Parliament today, so I shall focus on it.

Business rates are governed by a raft of secondary legislation that needs to be updated more or less annually to ensure that it reflects changes made to the rates retention scheme and to the structure of local government. The miscellaneous amendments in the draft regulations will ensure that for the forthcoming financial year, the retention scheme operates as intended and everyone receives the funding they expect.

The draft regulations make changes to four of the seven principal sets of regulations that govern the operation of the rates retention scheme. First, the Non-Domestic Rating (Transitional Protection Payments) Regulations 2013 provide for authorities to receive compensation where their business rates income is lower than it otherwise would be as a result of transitional measures put in place by Government. The draft regulations make a small change for 2023 and future years to ensure that the calculation ignores the newly introduced public lavatories relief, so that compensation is calculated and paid on the true cost of the transitional arrangements put in place following the revaluation.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have a tiny point to make. Do the draft regulations cover the whole of the UK, just England, or England with Wales?

[Lee Rowley]

I had to check, but it is England.

Secondly, the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) Regulations 2013 provide for the day-to-day administration of the rates retention scheme. As part of those arrangements, the City of London is allowed to retain a small amount of business rates income outside the scheme in recognition of its low resident population and its limited ability to raise council tax income. The amount that the City is allowed to retain normally changes each year in line with the change to the business rates multiplier. In 2023, that multiplier is not changing, so the change before the Committee isolates the inflationary uplift and ensures that it is applied to the City offset. Without the change, the City would see no increase in the coming financial year.

Thirdly, the draft regulations make changes to the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations 2013. Under the rates retention scheme, authorities may receive financial help if their business rates income declines. The cost of making the safety net payments is met in part by a levy on those authorities whose income is growing. The levy and safety net regulations set out in detail how such payments are to be calculated and make adjustments accordingly.

[Mr Sheerman]

The Minister is being very good at giving way, and being fast and getting through the business as we all want to, but as a newly appointed freeman of the City of London, may I press him? I hope the measure does not mean that the City of London gets special privileges, does it?

[Lee Rowley]

It is an accommodation within the existing regulations, as I understand it, given that the City of London is incredibly atypical in having large service requirements but a very low residential population. There has to be an accommodation somewhere in the processes for the realities in the City of London to ensure that it can still support the services it needs to provide for those visiting, living and working within the City.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Does the Minister have an estimate of the benefit to the City of London of the particular opt-out that it enjoys?

[Lee Rowley]

I do not have an estimate, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with it. The principle behind the change has been in place for a number of years. As a result of freezing the multiplier, we are simply seeking to ensure the continuation of the situation that would otherwise occur had we changed the multiplier.

The regulations make changes to the non-domestic rating regulations on the basis of distribution of the levy account. I said a moment ago that safety net payments made to authorities whose business rates income has declined are paid for in part by a levy on those who have experienced growth. All levy and safety net payments are made to or from a levy account. Any surplus on that account can at year end be repaid to local government or carried forward against future deficits. If it is repaid, it is distributed to authorities as set out in the basis of distribution regulations. The changes we are making to those regulations pick up the changes to the structure of local government. They also ensure that those authorities will receive a share of the £100 million surplus held in the levy account that the Government announced in the local government finance settlement that it would be redistributing back to local authorities this year.

Although the changes are relatively technical in intent, they make a number of critical changes to the administration of the business rates retention scheme. Without them, authorities would find themselves without the income from the rates retention scheme that they anticipate and according to which they have budgeted. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions, which I will try to answer in a number of buckets.

I accept that the Government and the Opposition have a different views about how to approach business rates, and I recognise that we will not resolve that this evening, but we are trying to ensure that there are regular revaluations. We committed to that, and the Prime Minister—the former Chancellor and Minister for Local Government—has highlighted in his various guises the importance of regular revaluation. I think that is genuinely welcome, and it is important that we do that.

As a result of the changes that have been made, a multi-billion pound support package is coming that will provide significant support to businesses across the country—in particular for businesses such as pubs. It is important to highlight that we need to continue the business rate system. Labour Members talk extensively about how it does not work, but less about what they would replace it with, beyond the high level. We must ensure that the system is updated, that it has a significant amount of support within it, and that it works for the long run.

The hon. Lady talked about online businesses. That is obviously a challenging issue to get right, but I gently note that as part of the revaluation, there will be a significant uplift in business rate costs for some manifestations of online businesses—warehouses and the like—so I hope that the Opposition will welcome that.

On resources, it is important to note that part of one of the four changes in the thing we are actually voting on—we obviously talk about broader issues relating to business rates regularly—a significant amount of money is being redistributed to local authorities. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for confirming that she will not press these regulations to a vote. Where money is in the system—in the levy account—and is not needed because we think we can accommodate the coming year and beyond without having to retain it, we are giving it back to local authorities, which understand better what to do with it.

On new burdens funding and the City of London, I am happy to write to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent with more information after the Committee. I am grateful for the Opposition’s confirmation that they will not oppose the regulations and I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: Action Plan

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

Nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) spur growth, investment and regeneration throughout the country and are vital to achieving our levelling up ambitions. That is why I am pleased to publish a cross-Government action plan setting out reforms to the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime that will seek to streamline and speed up the consenting process.

The nationally significant infrastructure projects process, which operates predominantly in England and Wales, has served the UK well for more than a decade. However, the demands on the system are changing, and its speed has slowed. Government set out their ambition in the national infrastructure strategy in 2020 to make the infrastructure consenting process better, faster and greener and these ambitions were reinforced in the British energy security strategy. Our action plan is informed by extensive engagement with the sector which included a call for evidence on the operational review of the system that sought feedback from a wide range of stakeholders.

This action plan sets out the reforms that we will implement over the coming months to ensure the system can support our future infrastructure needs by;

Setting a clear strategic direction through national policy statements that are reviewed more regularly.

Bringing forward operational reforms that support a more streamlined consenting process and piloting a new fast track consenting opportunity.

Ensuring the system is better placed to meet our strategic environmental goals and actively address the environmental impacts of development.

Recognising the important role local authorities play in hosting and delivering new infrastructure as well strengthening community engagement in the process.

Improving system wide capacity and capability by moving to full cost recovery for key statutory consultees and the Planning Inspectorate.

I want to see real benefits to the consenting process being delivered as quickly as possible. Many of the measures set out in the action plan are already under way, and I want to see the benefit of the wider package of reforms come into effect as soon as possible. Following the publication of this action plan, the Department will consult on some the key aspects of our reforms in the spring and bring forward the key regulatory and guidance changes needed to deliver the reforms soon after.

A copy of the nationally significant infrastructure projects action plan will be deposited in the Library of both Houses.

[HCWS575]

Voter Identification

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if he will make a statement on the roll-out of voter identification.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

Democracy is precious. The United Kingdom’s electoral system has a hard-earned reputation for transparency and integrity, and that needs regular review and, where appropriate, enhancement to ensure that it works today just as it did in the past.

One of the most basic principles of voting is that the people who cast their votes are eligible to do so. The introduction of voter identification at polling stations from May will be another lock in ensuring that the integrity of our democracy is protected for the long term. Nor is this anything new: voter identification has been in place in Northern Ireland for nearly 20 years. As for elections in Great Britain, this Government stood on a manifesto that said we would introduce it, won on the basis of doing so, introduced legislation to fulfil that commitment, and are now delivering on that promise. We will not shirk our responsibilities to protect the integrity of the ballot box.

According to Government research, about 98% of the electorate already have an accepted voter ID, whether it is a passport, a driving licence or one of nearly 20 other eligible types of identification. That includes, for some, expired identification, in order to maximise participation. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people already have what they need to fulfil this new protection at the ballot box. For those who do not, the Government have made available a voter authority certificate, which can be applied for today. It is free of charge and can be issued to everyone who wants it in readiness for May. To date, more than 21,000 applications have been made. Hon. Members will likely have seen—as have I, along with many millions of others—the extensive communications campaigns now under way, run by the Electoral Commission and, at a local level, by individual councils. Those will continue all the way up to May.

There are few tasks more important in public life than maintaining the trust of the British public in our electoral institutions and our electoral processes. A huge amount of work is under way, and that will continue until May. I am grateful to officials, to the Electoral Commission and to councils up and down the land for the work that they are doing. We are taking action to strengthen the integrity of those institutions and processes and to protect the sanctity of the vote. It is now incumbent on all Members—having had the debate and having resolved to do this last year—to send a collective clear signal that this change is important to protect the integrity of the ballot box, and that we should all get ready for this to happen in May.

[Helen Morgan]

For months and months, Members on the Opposition side of the House have fought the Government’s voter ID plans tooth and nail. We have warned that this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, at an exorbitant cost to the taxpayer, and that it is a thinly veiled attempt to make it far more difficult for people to vote.

This morning I was appalled to read new statistics relating to the Government’s botched roll-out of voter ID, revealing that of the estimated 2 million people who will now need a new form of ID—a voter authority certificate—in order to vote, just 1% have applied for it. And of that tiny number—not even 21,000—a tiny minority are older people or young people, groups who we were warned risked being disenfranchised under these new plans. We are just 10 weeks away from the local elections. Safeguarding our democracy and the fundamental right to vote should be the priority of any responsible Government.

I therefore urge the Minister to answer the following questions. What are the Government going to do to fix this? In particular, how are they going to target groups who have limited access to the internet to ensure that they do not lose out? What engagement will take place with local authorities and what support will be provided? It seems absurd that local authorities might have to pay the cost of the Government’s botched roll-out of voter ID.

Will the Minister commit to, at the very least, pausing this year’s roll-out? He will be aware of the Electoral Commission’s analysis that this roll-out means that the May elections cannot be run in a

“fully secure, accessible and workable”

manner. Will the Government expand the list of acceptable forms of ID so that fewer people have to apply for a local authority certificate? Many Members were rightly concerned when it was revealed last autumn that some forms of student ID were not included in the list. Do the Government have any handle on the level of awareness among the general public regarding the need to bring ID with them to vote in May? I would say that the Government were sleepwalking into a disaster, but I am afraid that, to me, this looks a little more cynical.

[Lee Rowley]

We are clearly going to have a discussion today in which hon. Members have every right, should they wish, to use quite outrageous rhetoric in relation to this basic, fundamental change to ensure that we protect the integrity of the ballot box. I would encourage them to think carefully about how they approach this during the urgent question.

To answer the hon. Lady’s questions specifically, I need to take on this notion that there are 2 million people who need voter ID. That is absolutely not correct and I hope that hon. Members will stop reiterating it. Of those 2 million people—which is an estimate—a large number will not have elections in their area this year. Secondly, of that group, a number will choose not to vote, much as we would like them to do so. They may have chosen never to vote, and although we would encourage them to do so, that is ultimately the purpose of a democracy: people have a right to vote and a right not to vote. We are seeking to encourage them to vote and seeking to guarantee that integrity. There may also have been a choice for people to change to postal votes. We are continuing to work to encourage take-up where it is necessary, but it is fundamentally incorrect for hon. Members in this House to suggest that some form of target is being missed.

The hon. Lady also asked what we were going to do to target groups. We are already doing that. We have engaged on multiple levels at multiple times with those who could be hard to reach, and we will continue to do that all the way up until May. It is not correct that local authorities are paying the cost, as she suggested. New burdens funding has been paid and there will be a true-up process afterwards to ensure that people are not out of pocket. The list of means of identification that the hon. Lady asked to be expanded already had more than 20 on it, including passports and driving licences. As I said in my initial response, that includes some instances where expiration had happened. I would encourage the Liberal Democrats and other hon. Members to understand that we are seeking to ensure that the sanctity of the ballot box can be protected, and I wish that they would support these reasonable and proportionate measures to do that.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Personation and multiple voting by individuals is notoriously hard to prove, which is one of the reasons that very few people get prosecuted. But we know it goes on, so does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to safeguard the validity of voting, it is vital that people can substantiate who they are when they go to vote?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

“Personation at the polling station will be made much more difficult by the requirement for all voters to provide a specified form of photographic identification.”—[Official Report, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 739.]

Those are not my words but those of the Labour Minister who introduced photographic identification in Northern Ireland in 2003.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The implementation of a voter identification scheme has always been a solution in search of a problem. We are more likely to be struck by lightning 54 times than to be queueing behind a person committing vote fraud at a polling station. Nevertheless, for their own purposes, the Government chose to force through voter ID legislation this time last year.

For months, those who administer and monitor our elections—the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Local Government Association, the Electoral Commission—all warned the Government that there was not enough time to safely implement the scheme for May or for those without ID to get a voter authority certificate. The Minister disregarded this expert advice and pushed ahead anyway, and the complacency that we have heard today is breathtaking.

I am sorry if the 2 million figure is such a problem for the Minister, but the reality is that the applications that have been made represent just over 1% of those who will need this. At the current rate of sign-up, it will take a decade to get credentials to everyone who needs them, but there are only 72 days to polling day. We are risking widespread disenfranchisement. When is the Minister going to wake up and act to prevent these voter ID requirements from locking huge numbers of people out of our democracy at the next election?

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman continues to perpetuate the myth that this is some form of suppression. He is absolutely incorrect. Putting aside party political views, we have a responsibility in this place to make sure that we are temperate with our language, particularly when it relates to something as important as the ballot box. [Interruption.] He chunters that I should listen to the experts, but if this urgent question had not been granted—although I am grateful for this opportunity to respond to it—I would have been in a meeting right now with the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Local Government Association and the Electoral Commission, to continue my regular interactions about making sure that this works.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Given that under the existing system people have to fill in a registration form in order to vote in an election, why should it be more difficult for people who have shown themselves capable of registering to vote to bring along a piece of identification when they come to exercise that right?

[Lee Rowley]

My right hon. Friend is right. An estimated 98% of people already have this ID and, as I have indicated, we are providing additional ID for the people who choose to vote but do not have ID at the moment, so that we can ensure that May is as successful as it can be.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

If the proposal for voter ID is such a sensible and necessary requirement, as the Minister claims, can he tell us why fewer types of ID are to be acceptable for voting than the post office will accept for collecting a parcel? It would seem that there is some gerrymandering going on. Some types of student ID and Oyster cards for the under-30s will not be accepted, but Oyster cards for the over-60s will be accepted. How does the Minister explain that? If the Government are disenfranchising young people, how many would they see as a success in that regard? Does he also accept that what we are now seeing would be objected to in some of the more regressive US states?

[Lee Rowley]

Voter ID is a policy that has been implemented by many countries across the world. It is pretty standard, including in parts of the European Union, which the hon. Gentleman’s party is keen to get back into. In 2010, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe carried out a review of the elections in the United Kingdom at that point and it was clear that there was a weakness in our system around ensuring that identification was provided. I would gently encourage the hon. Gentleman to come off the talking points and to look at what is actually the case. An example in question is the Oyster card point, which continues to be raised by Members in this House. It is extremely simple to answer that question. Members should go and look at the eligibility for 18-year-old Oyster cards and at the eligibility for 60+ Oyster cards. They are different. The eligibility for the 60+ card involves significantly more requirements, including a passport or a driving licence. Of course it will be the case when we try to expand the level of identification that can be used, as we try to ensure that people can take it to the ballot box, that we are going to say yes in some instances and no in others, if that eligibility is different.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

The proof is in the pudding. We had a successful pilot in Swindon where the turnout was up. Would the Minister agree that for each of those on the long list of my many Labour opponents over the years, in their respective selection meetings, their members required voter ID? If it is good enough for them, surely it is good enough for all of us.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is right. That was also the case in the recent Wakefield by-election, where I believe the Labour candidate was selected on the basis of photographic ID. What is good enough for the Labour party should be good enough to secure the integrity and sanctity of our ballot box more widely.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

I thank my hon. Friend. If I were a young person with a travel pass issued by the same authority, I could not produce it at the polling station. Quite simply, what do the Government have against young people? Why are they discriminating against them? Why are they finding every reason to disqualify their forms of ID? Is it because the Government do not expect that many young people will vote for them?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my near constituency neighbour for his question. No, it is absolutely not the case that we are discriminating against anybody. We want maximum participation in elections, and we want to ensure the integrity of the ballot box. I gently draw his attention to the Government research that found that younger people are more likely than the general population to hold a form of voter ID. His logic does not apply.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

As we have heard, constituency Labour party meetings regularly request voter ID. I therefore challenge Labour Members to put their money where their mouth is and waive those requirements, if they are so confident that voter ID is not needed. Will the Minister remind the House of this programme’s success in Northern Ireland not only in tackling fraud but in increasing voter confidence?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been voter ID in Northern Ireland for 20 years, and it has run successfully. There is absolutely no reason why that will not be the case in the United Kingdom as a whole.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I agree with the Minister that the integrity of our democracy is incredibly important, but I suggest that the best way to strengthen security at the ballot box is to increase turnout, which would reduce voter fraud.

Two million people do not hold valid ID, and will not hold it in May. I remind the Minister that access to photo ID is a luxury and, in a cost of living crisis, the reality is that many of our constituents cannot afford the luxury of paying £82 for a passport or around £40 for a driving licence. They are being priced out of the ballot box. I urge him to look again at the list. After the May elections, will he make a statement to the House outlining what actually happened and how many people were turned away?

[Lee Rowley]

One of our reasons for offering a free voter authority certificate, which 21,000 people have already taken up, is to address precisely that question.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

Picking up a parcel, borrowing a library book and voting in internal Labour party elections are all activities for which photo ID is required. Does the Minister agree that this battle, this argument, has already been won? Opposition Members would do better to ensure free and fair elections by encouraging photo ID sign-up in communities that do not have it.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we are focusing on making sure that people are aware of this change and vote in a way that reflects the change so that May is successful. There is a huge amount of work to do to secure the integrity of the ballot box for the long term.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

The Government were warned that their voter ID scheme would disenfranchise many people, and specifically disabled people. The Royal National Institute of Blind People’s tracker survey found that 13% of blind and partially sighted people have no photographic ID. We know that not much additional resource is going into local authorities, so would it not make sense for the Government to invest significantly in making voting accessible and inclusive for everybody, including blind and partially sighted people?

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Lady takes a keen interest in this area, and she will be aware that we are making changes to encourage blind and partially sighted people to get more involved in the electoral process and at the ballot box in May, which is one of the reasons I met the Royal National Institute of Blind People on 8 February. I will continue to meet all organisations representing these areas to ensure that this works as well as it is able to in May.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Many people who do not carry ID tend to be in already marginalised demographics, and now they will be disenfranchised. The Tories are “trying to gerrymander”. I do not always agree with the editor of The Spectator, but he is right on this occasion, is he not?

[Lee Rowley]

No, he is not, for the reasons I have provided. Many countries around the world have voter ID to ensure the integrity of the ballot box, and I encourage the Labour party and the hon. Lady to encourage their constituents to get involved. It will be happening.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Rather than rail against a very sensible measure to improve the integrity of elections, would Opposition parties not do better to focus on supporting councils and the Electoral Commission to encourage people to check what identification is needed and, if they do not have it, to get the free voter authority certificate, which is readily available?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Now is the time to ensure the successful delivery of this policy. Work is under way in the Department, the Electoral Commission and councils, and it is for all parties in this place to ensure that the people who vote for them are aware of the change of responsibilities coming in May, to ensure that they continue to do so.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

This Tory Government always lecture us about wanting to deregulate and not interfere in the freedoms and liberties of individuals as they go about their daily lives. All the independent research indicates that voter ID will disadvantage people who are least likely to vote Tory. What is it that attracted the Minister to this measure?

[Lee Rowley]

It is safeguarding the integrity of the ballot box for the long term, which the Labour party seemed to care about when it was in government in 2010. Its lack of care right now demonstrates its lack of interest in going into government in future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much. He probably knows what I will say but, having had voter ID for more than 20 years, it has become second nature in Northern Ireland. Free photographic ID is provided and can be used to fly to the UK mainland or to purchase age-restricted products. It is a simple process that can be facilitated with a simple form and photograph. It has cut down on fraud, and I stand behind the principle of one person, one vote, which it protects. Does the Minister agree that the free provision of electoral ID is an essential component of any legislation?

[Lee Rowley]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is one of the few people in this place with experience of voter ID. I encourage the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats to listen to what he says about its long-term success in Northern Ireland.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Seventy-two days out from the elections, the electorate do not know that they need to carry voter ID. It is one thing to say that people who are used to doing it will continue to carry voter ID, but people who do not know about it will not carry voter ID. Will the Minister set out everything he will be doing to communicate what each electorate will have to do between now and the election to get this ID?

[Lee Rowley]

The Electoral Commission, which undertakes regular advertising in advance of elections, has been engaged to do this, and its campaign began in early January and will continue until May. The polling cards going out to every household that votes will carry a clear message to indicate what is happening. We have provided individual budgets so that local authorities can reach out to make sure that their communities are aware of the coming change.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The census shows that 40% of people in Wales do not have a passport, compared with 2.9% in Westminster. We will have no experience of voter ID in Wales until May 2024, so how on earth will the Minister assess any potential and entirely unintentional voter suppression in Wales, given that we might have a general election before then?

[Lee Rowley]

The research indicates that 98% of people across the United Kingdom have ID. Where there is a gap, I encourage those who are concerned to make sure that their electorate are aware of the coming change and to highlight the point of that change, which is to ensure the integrity of the ballot box for the long term.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

A total of 505 people over 75 years of age have applied for the Government’s voter ID document in the past month—that is fewer than the number of MPs in this House. Young people, too, are disproportionately disadvantaged. Will the Minister reflect on the fact that what he is taking part in is an erosion of a fundamental British freedom, a fundamental British civil liberty: the right to vote freely? We are more likely to be struck by lightning than to be impersonated at the ballot box.

[Lee Rowley]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has managed to get in material for his usual social media clip. The reality is that we are trying to ensure the integrity of the ballot box for the long term. Ninety eight per cent. of people have access to ID. We will continue to work right up until May to ensure that those who do not have ID, but who want it, have it for the May elections.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The turnover of voters in my Glasgow Central constituency is significant, due to a large student population and the housing mix in the city, which makes turnover high in general. Can the Minister explain how people will understand the requirements for voter ID in Westminster elections, when there are different franchises and different elections? The challenge for many of us when campaigning in elections is in getting people registered at all. Surely it will be the case that people will turn up on the day expecting to vote, but will not be able to do so.

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Lady makes the important point that there are differences in how elections are run in some of the devolved Administrations, but that is nothing new. I say to her gently that her Administration are consulting on a proposal to greater vary how elections are run within the United Kingdom, and I encourage her to talk to the devolved Administrations about that. We will continue to do what we have outlined, which is to highlight the change to make as many people as possible aware of it and to encourage people to ensure that they can still vote, and vote in a way that is protected and has integrity.

[Nick Smith]

Just 1% of those who are eligible have signed up to the voter ID scheme. It will take 10 years to issue the new ID to those who need it, but, with local elections just 10 weeks away, would it not make more sense to go back to the drawing board? The Government must come up with plans to boost voter turnout, not suppress it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). It is incorrect to perpetuate this 2 million number. A number of those people do not have elections this year. Ultimately, it will be down to people to decide whether they wish to get a voter authority certificate. I encourage them to do so. I hope that they will do so, but, ultimately, it is the choice of an engaged citizenry how to do that. We will continue to highlight and advertise this change to those people up to May and beyond.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I am proud to represent young people in my constituency and also the students at Oxford University and at Oxford Brookes. One of them wrote to me, saying:

“It is outrageous that the over-60s Oyster card will be considered valid ID, but the 18-30 card will not. This is clearly an attack on young people and will disproportionately impact their ability to vote.”

The fact is—we all know this—that younger people are less likely to vote. We encourage them to do so at every opportunity, but, because they are transient, many do not know whether they will be in one constituency or another. What are the Minister’s plans to target young people in particular so that they can make sure that they are not disenfranchised? Can he seriously stand there and say with a straight face that this has nothing to do with the fact that most of them will not be voting Tory?

[Lee Rowley]

When I was a student in the hon. Lady’s constituency, one thing I was told by tutors at my college was to look at the detail. The detail on the Oyster card for 18-year-olds is different from that on the over-60s Oyster card. That is identified on the website, and I encourage the Liberal Democrats to look at it.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

My Liverpool, Riverside constituency has some of the most disadvantaged wards in the country and many of my constituents, particularly young people and black people, will not have access to valid ID. The Minister has spoken about the integrity and sanctity of the ballot box. Can he explain how many cases of fraud have been identified, and will he commit to undertake a review after the May elections?

[Lee Rowley]

On the hon. Lady’s final point, absolutely we will review what happens in May. We have already committed to that both in this place and elsewhere. We want to learn from the experience, just as Labour wanted to learn from the engagement at the introduction of this scheme in Northern Ireland in 2003. We will absolutely do that, but if the hon. Lady has concerns about reaching out to communities in Liverpool, I encourage her to speak to her council, which has been given additional money to undertake communications to do that very job.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I now ask constituents when I knock on doors whether they know about producing voter ID, and so far this year not one has known about the requirement and not one has been in favour of it. Voter turnout depends on familiarity with where we go to vote and what we do. Low turnout is a much more serious problem for our democracy than the de minimis level of fraud. Does the Minister think that turnout will go up or down as a result of these measures?

[Lee Rowley]

As the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, we all want high turnout. We all want the maximum number of people who can vote to do so. That is one reason why in other parts of the Elections Act 2022, we are extending the franchise. This is part of a broad group of measures that seek to protect the integrity and sanctity of the ballot box while ensuring that as many people who wish to vote can do so.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

What does the Minister think the overlap will be between those least likely to have the requisite ID and those least likely to vote for the Conservative party?

[Lee Rowley]

I think that I have already answered that question, but I encourage the hon. Gentleman, in readiness for the elections that will take place in his area in the future, to spend his time highlighting to his constituents how we are protecting the sanctity of the vote, rather than making cheap shots such as that.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

As of today, just 118 people have applied for the voter authority certificate in Cheshire West and Chester. I urge the Minister to apply some common sense to this. We have had debates on the principle of this, but can we pause the roll-out to ensure that we have integrity of the franchise for all?

[Lee Rowley]

As the hon. Gentleman outlines, it is important that we have integrity of the ballot box. I have explained multiple times why this is an important initiative to ensure that. If he has concerns about what is happening in Cheshire West and Chester, I encourage him to take it up with the leader of Cheshire West and Chester Council, who has been given additional money to make sure that they communicate with those in hard-to-reach areas so that the May elections are successful.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Government’s website says that to apply for voter authority certificates, people need a recent digital photo of themselves. Even if applying by post, people will need access to a printer so that they can print off the form. This really misses the point that many people, especially elderly people and those on low pay, do not have access to a computer. It is also estimated that more than 3 million over-65s have no access to the internet, and more than 7 million adults have very poor literacy skills. How will the Government make sure that those with poor literacy and digital skills and those with no access to a computer or the internet will be able to exercise their basic and fundamental right to vote in elections?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

There is no requirement for a person to be computer literate or to go through online processes to acquire a voter authority certificate. Alternative processes are available and have been used, and I have data on them. We want to make sure that those who do not have computer can still have a voter authority certificate should they want to have one.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister knows that many council seats are currently decided by a handful of votes. Does he accept that, inevitably, there will be a change in how a number of seats are won or lost and that, in turn, the control of particular councils will be determined by a handful of votes in a number of seats? Does he anticipate that the Government will have to go to court charged with voter suppression and an intentional corruption of our democracy, because people will simply forget to bring their voter ID—it is not that they do not have it—and that will change the outcome? Those people will say that they had forgotten their ID, that they would have voted for X or Y, but they did not, and that will be the margin that determines the future of that council, which is a disgrace.

[Lee Rowley]

Many council seats have been decided on a very small number of votes in Northern Ireland for 20 years. The change brought in by the Labour party in 2003 requiring voter identification in that country is now being applied elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I gently ask the hon. Gentleman, when there are next elections in his area, to encourage his constituents to recognise that voter ID is here, and it is here in order to protect the sanctity of the ballot box.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

Introducing further barriers to voting is like shadow boxing a phantom foe. The Government’s changes threaten to disenfranchise millions and place an administrative burden on local authority staff. It was reported yesterday that fewer than 1,300 people aged under 25 have registered for the new paperwork. Can the Minister explain why it is okay for members of the Conservative party to elect the Prime Minister via an online ballot, while ordinary people face voter restrictions when they go to their local polling station?

[Lee Rowley]

One of the principles of liberalism, which Liberal Democrats often forget, is equality before the law. Equality before the law requires processes to ensure integrity. I gently highlight to him a quote from the former hon. Member for Montgomeryshire in 2001, when he spoke on this subject on behalf of the Liberal Democrats:

“we accept the need for a Bill…The Liberal Democrats also welcome the Government’s intention to introduce an electoral identity card”. —[Official Report, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 706.]

What has changed?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of the impact of variations in staffing and resources on the effectiveness of local trading standards teams.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

As my hon. Friend will know, local authorities are responsible for determining resourcing priorities in accordance with the needs of their local electorates, and the members of those electorates will differ according to the areas where they live. That said, the local government finance settlement for 2023-24 makes available up to £60 billion for local government in England in response to the requests of the sector, and the majority of that funding is ringfenced in recognition of the fact that local authorities are best placed to understand the priorities.

[John Penrose]

There is a widespread concern that some local trading standards teams are no longer capable of protecting local citizens from scams, fraud and rip-offs, or of delivering the strong and fair competition locally which will ultimately be the only route for levelling up jobs, exports and growth in left-behind communities. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the proposals for minimum standards in my Government-commissioned report “Power to the people”, so that we can level up opportunities in communities throughout the country?

[Lee Rowley]

I have read that report, and I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk more about this important issue, in which I know he has a long-standing interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

17. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of trends in the level of local authority budgets.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

The local government finance settlement 2023-24 recently made available nearly £60 billion of funding for local government in England in the coming financial year, responding to the requests of the sector for clarity, space and additional resources.

[Helen Morgan]

Shropshire Council has recently reported that it needs to find £10 million of cuts this quarter and £50 million in the coming years. Some 85% of its budget is spent on social care, so 97% of residents are going to pay more for reduced services. Will the Government consider reviewing the fair funding formula, so that councils in rural areas can continue to provide proper services to their constituents?

[Lee Rowley]

The main message we heard from the local government sector in the past 12 months, after covid, inflation and all the pressures it had, was that it wanted stability. What we have tried to offer as part of the financial settlement for 2023-24 is a stable platform upon which colleagues in local government can plan, reform and work through where they are going in the future.

[Munira Wilson]

Both adult and children’s social care are in crisis, but the social care grant, which can be used for both, excludes from its flawed funding formula the needs of tens of thousands of vulnerable children across this country. That means that in London alone councils will miss out on some £600 million by 2025, leaving boroughs such as mine in Richmond struggling to provide high-quality care for those children in need. Will the Minister look at fixing this faulty formula so that the most vulnerable children in our society can get the care they desperately need?

[Lee Rowley]

As I said to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), we are prioritising stability this year. Of course we always look at elements of the settlement and what we can or cannot do, and how we can make them better for the long term. However, substantial additional funding, support and resources are going into the local government finance settlement, which we hope will make a difference on the frontline.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Over a decade of Tory cuts are not the only thing damaging council budgets; fly-tipping is a stain on our communities and costs nearly £400 million a year. Taxpayers are left footing the bill for the 16% increase in this crime under a Tory Government. Councils should not pay the price for Conservatives being soft on crime, so does the Minister agree that it is time to get tough on people who do not respect our neighbourhoods? Will he back Labour’s plan for stronger punishment for fly-tippers and the introduction of clear-up squads?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. I absolutely agree that fly-tipping is a scourge and a crime, and that local authorities have the resources and the ability to try to do this and to crack down on it. I encourage them to do so.

[Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to support local authorities in tackling antisocial behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

22. What assessment has he made of the impact on energy efficiency of the part L uplift in the building regulations.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

The part L uplift, which came into force in June 2022, delivered a significant improvement in energy efficiency. New homes now produce 30% fewer CO₂ emissions, and new non-domestic buildings produce 27% fewer. The uplift will act as a stepping stone to the 2025 standards, which we will consult on in due course.

[Eddie Hughes]

Is the Minister aware of a simple additive called EndoTherm, which can be added to both domestic and non-domestic wet heating systems for condensing boilers? Tests have proved that it reduces energy use and hopefully it will soon be standard assessment procedure-approved for testing. If he is not aware of it, will he meet me and Andrew Bean to discuss its properties?

[Lee Rowley]

I was not aware of it until now, but I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting it. As he knows from his time in the Department, our approach is agnostic on technology and materials, but where there are opportunities to find out more about how things are working and how we can improve things, I am happy to do so.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Capital Projects: Spending Decisions

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I am glad we know what question we are being asked. Levelling up is one of the defining missions of this Government. Whether it is moving 22,000 civil servants outside of London by 2030 and backing overlooked town centres and high streets, or devolving power and money away from Whitehall and Westminster, this Government are delivering for the people of this country. There has been significant focus on the mechanics of government in recent days. Even if the question asked today was not that clear at the outset, it is absolutely the case that processes change and may apply at times in different ways.

We are working within a new delegation approach with the Treasury, which involves Treasury sign-off on capital spend. We will always work closely with the Treasury. We value its focus on value for money; it values and shares our mission to level up the country as a whole, and we will continue to do that. We are making good on our promise to spread opportunity across the country, with £9.6 billion of levelling-up funds announced since 2019, on top of the £7.5 billion commitment to the nine city-based mayoral combined authorities in England. That includes £3.2 billion of funding via the towns and high street funds, £3.8 billion from the levelling-up fund, £2.6 billion from the UK shared prosperity fund and £16.7 million from the community ownership fund.

There has been no change to the budgets of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, whether capital or revenue; no change to our policy objectives; no dilution of our ambition; and there are no implications for the Government’s policy agenda. Four years ago, this Government promised the British people a stronger, fairer and more united country. It was a promise embodied in levelling up, and it is a promise we are going to keep.

[Lisa Nandy]

It appears that nothing is going right in this place today. I have lost count of the number of times I have had to drag Ministers from this shambolic, failing Department to the House to account for their failures—failures to deliver and failures to understand the impact of our money that is being spent. An extraordinary report in the Financial Times today suggests that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has been banned from spending any new money on capital projects without approval from the Treasury. It follows a damning National Audit Office report, which provided evidence that the Department had no idea about the impact of the money that it was spending, and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee made an assessment that billions of pounds of our money were being wasted, because the Government had engaged in a programme without any understanding of the impact of that programme.

If this report is true, we are in the absurd situation of having a Secretary of State who does not even have the authority to sign off on a park bench. Is this true? If so, what is the Government’s assessment of what that means for the levelling-up agenda, of which a third round of spending has just been announced, and for tackling the housing crisis? Is it true that this decision by the Treasury was prompted by unauthorised spending commitments made by the Secretary of State at the convention of the north to spend money on improving appalling housing standards, after the desperate death of a two-year-old boy in Rochdale? I understand that the Secretary of State is in Rochdale today. How can he possibly tell housing associations to sort themselves out if he cannot sort out his own Department? We deserve to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes that a Secretary of State who is finally—belatedly—spending money on improving housing standards is a Secretary of State who has gone rogue, because that would be very serious.

The rumours are swirling that there is huge underspend in the Department. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, yet I understand that the affordable housing budget has not been spent and that there are levelling-up funds that have not been spent either, which will now be clawed back by the Treasury. Is that true? Will the Government publish the correspondence between the Departments about this matter? It is our money, and we deserve to know.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her questions. There was a significant amount of hyperbole in there and a significant amount of suggestion and inference, but the reality remains, as I confirmed in my initial response to her question, that there has been no change to budgets, capital or revenue. There has been no change to our policy objectives, no dilution of our ambition to level up, and no implications for the Government’s policy agenda. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State does what she does best, which is to heckle from a sedentary position, but I will try to answer her questions. She suggests that there has been a failure to deliver. I would talk to the communities up and down the land that have been given these funds, opportunities and possibilities. We see delivery daily. I see it in my constituency; towns are being transformed through the towns fund, which has been providing funding since 2019.

The shadow Secretary of State asked a question about capital spending; I answered it in my last response. She also asked about the implications for the levelling-up agenda. There are no implications for the levelling-up agenda.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for answering this urgent question. Capital projects across the country may be slipping because they cannot be delivered immediately. Will he confirm that where there is slippage, the capital funds will still be available, and will not be clawed back by the Treasury, so that we do not lose the benefits of capital projects that everyone wants?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. My understanding is that where commitments have been made, they absolutely will be adhered to; that will be understood, and they will be provided for. In my constituency, there have been commitments of £25 million under the town deal for both Clay Cross and Staveley; we are still expecting that, and are spending. We will still realise the benefits of those two lots of £25 million, which will be spent transforming communities that were ignored for far too long under the Labour party.

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the SNP spokesperson.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Members need only have attended Tuesday afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate on this subject to realise that the levelling-up agenda is unravelling. There was an astonishing admission of last-minute ministerial interference from the Treasury, particularly in Glasgow, where it is reported that £500,000-worth of employee work hours were put into bids that were unsuccessful due to that last-minute interference.

The Treasury’s decision to rein in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is far from being standard practice. So far, we have not received an honest reason why that happened. Have the Government given up all pretence of caring about levelling up, or do they no longer have faith in DLUHC to deliver it? Three of the five most deprived areas in Scotland have not received a penny of levelling-up funding. Is the levelling-up project now funnelling money from the poorest areas to the wealthiest? Given the astonishing admission on Tuesday afternoon in Westminster Hall that Ministers interfered at the last minute to take out any round 2 applications from areas that received money, no matter how little, in round 1, will the Minister apologise to the House, and to the local authorities that put so much time and effort into preparing the bids?

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely incorrect to say that the levelling-up agenda is unravelling. Just last month we announced several billion pounds of additional capital spending on levelling-up projects bid for in round 2. As for caring about levelling up, communities up and down the land are getting the opportunity to transform their area, and to make good on promises that were not delivered under successive Governments for many decades. We in this place should celebrate that, rather than focusing on what is being focused on now. I gently say to him that if in Scotland, as in Derbyshire and elsewhere in the country, a number of areas have not been successful in getting funds that were on offer, are being provided and will be spent, I very much encourage those areas to apply when round 3 of the levelling-up fund opens in the coming months.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

As a great lady once reminded us, there is no such thing as public money, only taxpayers’ money. Does my hon. Friend agree that we Conservative Members should never apologise for applying the most stringent checks and balances, so that every penny spent is spent wisely?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are seeking to transform areas, including mine, that were ignored for far too long, but are doing so in a way that works for the Government and for taxpayers, so that their hard-earned money is spent in the right place, at the right time, to the right effect.

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

I congratulate the Minister on a valiant attempt at deflection. He has said that the budget and the policy had not changed, and they have not; what has changed is that the Treasury no longer trusts the Department to spend the money without Treasury approval. That is the change, isn’t it? Normally, surely this would be a matter for conversation between permanent secretaries, or between the Secretary of State and the Chancellor—“Bring yourselves into line, and sort yourselves out.” That presumably has been done, but now there is the strongest public condemnation from the Treasury of the Department’s ability to spend money properly. How can the Minister ever again admonish a council leader, or hold them to account, for not spending money properly?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, my constituency neighbour in South Yorkshire and north Derbyshire, for his comments. We had a similar exchange yesterday on the local government finance settlement. I have already outlined what the change is and I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but I have to reiterate that there has been no change to budget or to policy objectives. We continue to look forward to working with the Treasury, and with all other Government Departments, to achieve the outcomes we all want in this House, whichever Bench we sit on.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Given the social and economic division created by the Government over 13 years, the announcement of levelling up led to a reasonable expectation that money would be directed to the areas of greatest deprivation. Having listened to several debates on the subject this week, I now have doubts that that is the case. Will the Minister confirm that the single criterion for the direction of funds will be based on deprivation? Will he publish the details?

[Lee Rowley]

The information about the distribution of levelling-up funds has been published. I have seen, across Yorkshire and north Derbyshire in the coalfields that the hon. Gentleman and I both represent, a significant transformative opportunity through the towns fund and the levelling-up fund, which will make a huge difference to those places that traditionally have been left behind and which this Government, and this Government only, have responded to in our policy agenda.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Colleagues will note that the Minister attempts to obfuscate through refusals to address the fundamental question of whether the approval process has changed. What supposedly drew the ire and frustration of the Secretary of State’s colleagues was a speech in Manchester on 25 January suggesting that further funding would be available for some northern councils. What caused more angst in the Treasury: the fact that money was being spent in a rogue manner, or the fact that it went against the Prime Minister’s long-standing ambition to divert money away from deprived areas back towards places such as Royal Tunbridge Wells?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for Stretford and Urmston for his point. He will know, because he has long experience in local government, that that would be a crude and inaccurate misrepresentation of what the Prime Minister said a number of months ago. The hon. Gentleman’s first point was about obfuscation. There was no obfuscation. I was absolutely clear at the beginning of my response about what has changed and why that is the case.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

As other Members have noted, it has been reported that the Treasury has intervened in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ban new capital projects—on which the Minister keeps avoiding to give us an answer—because of concerns that the Department is not effectively managing public money. The Government’s most recent decision to create four new Departments could, according to analysis conducted by the Liberal Democrats, cost the public an estimated £60 million. Does the Minister agree that the Government should get their existing Departments in order before making costly decisions to set up four more?

[Lee Rowley]

I refer the hon. Lady to my answers at the outset, which explained very clearly the changes and how there is no ultimate change to what is being spent in communities up and down the land to transform areas that have been left behind for a long time.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Let me put it in local government terms for the Minister. When a council is told that it cannot spend any more money without specific approval, it is called a section 114 notice. What is it like for his Department to get the equivalent of a section 114 notice?

[Lee Rowley]

Let me put it in terms of reality. This Government’s budgets are not changing, this Department’s objectives are not changing, and this Government’s ambition is not changing on levelling up.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is not here, but I wonder if the Minister can talk to the Secretary of State so that he can talk to the Treasury about the importance of support for local authorities with capital for repair and maintenance of highly important, much-loved but also sadly rapidly dilapidating existing buildings, such as in Gateshead our leisure centre and swimming pools and even Gateshead International Stadium? The huge withdrawal of revenue support grant, which is of course revenue, has paralysed the financial capacity of local councils like Gateshead to support investment in existing buildings. What will the Minister do about that? Will he talk to the Secretary of State and ask him to talk to the Treasury?

[Lee Rowley]

Obviously, I will speak to the Secretary of State; we talk very regularly about some of the challenges that the hon. Gentleman highlights. I know that the hon. Gentleman will have seen yesterday’s local government finance settlement, which makes £60 billion available to councils over the next financial year, both for revenue and for other activities. It is ultimately for councils to make decisions about how they spend that, but I absolutely accept his challenge. That is why we introduced the levelling-up fund and the towns fund: to try to respond to some of those challenges. That funding has already had a significant impact and will continue to do so over its delivery. However, I am happy to pass his points back to my colleagues.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Local councils, now and in the days and weeks ahead, will be going through their budget-making processes. The news that they may not be able to draw down on capital funding, whether it has already been agreed or is to be agreed, will put some of those budget-making processes at risk or add additional layers. I ask the Minister again: does his Department have the authority to release funds for current projects or authorise funds for future projects, or is the report in the Financial Times true—yes or no?

[Lee Rowley]

I explained the change at the outset: there is no change to the budgets that we have provided and there is no change to the local government finance settlement, which was announced yesterday.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

Let us be under no illusions: this is wealth redistribution, but not the wealth redistribution and investment practised by the EU. This is Tory wealth redistribution, taking from areas that need investment and giving to areas that already have it. My constituency missed out on the towns fund: its bid was rejected. Despite an excellent bid from the Caledonian Railway in Brechin, it got hee-haw out of the levelling-up fund, too.

[Dave Doogan]

Will the Minister apologise for this grotesque “you can look, but you can’t touch” form of Tory funding?

[Lee Rowley]

We can always trust the Scottish National party to debate something that has already occurred and to take the situation back to the European Union. If that is the comparison that the hon. Gentleman wants to make, let me tell him that my constituency, North East Derbyshire, did not receive any significant money under the European Union in recent years, but as soon as we left the EU it received towns funding and levelling-up funding. That is because the Government have ensured that we are responding to the needs of local areas. We are actually trying to listen to and take heed of those areas that have been left behind, irrespective of the point about the European Union.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

The Minister’s Department covers some of the funds that are most vital to our communities. As it is, we do not have enough of them. He has been very clear that there is no change in the budget, but can he be absolutely clear that the Treasury will not stop decisions being made on important projects that we need in our communities?

[Lee Rowley]

It was only a few days ago that the Chancellor himself visited a successful levelling-up round 2 budget area, which demonstrates the commitment of the Treasury—just like the commitment of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—to deliver on what we say. We intend to do so, because it is so important for these communities to have the transformation that they need and want.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The Minister has said in various answers that the ambition has not changed, the policy has not changed and the budget has not changed. The reality is that the sign-off process has changed: the Treasury now signs projects off for his Department because it does not trust the Secretary of State.

We are shortly due to move to stage 3 of the levelling-up fund. Stage 2 was a farce; stage 1 was a mess. What assurance can the Minister give that stage 3 will start delivering for some of the most deprived communities, including in my Ogmore constituency, which has had nothing?

[Lee Rowley]

Just for clarity, the Treasury signs off budgets across Departments without any issue, as it has done under the Labour party, the coalition and the Conservative party.

The hon. Gentleman asks about round 3 of the levelling- up fund. We have given out billions of pounds under rounds 1 and 2. Local communities are excited by the opportunities that the changes will bring. I encourage his area to apply for round 3; I hope it is successful, and I hope he can share in the transformation that will come, which is already being delivered elsewhere.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The first line of the policy paper “Levelling Up Fund Round 2: prospectus” states:

“Investing in infrastructure has the potential to improve lives”.

I am anxious to find out how such infrastructure improvement can take place on coastal roads, where the environmental impact of erosion is leading to the isolation of communities. Will the Minister commit himself to a dedicated levelling-up strategy to address this serious issue?

[Lee Rowley]

I should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, along with the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), to discuss that further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Patricia Gibson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Minister has talked repeatedly today about the transformative effect of levelling up, but because levelling up is not inflation-proofed, councils that secured funding last October are facing shortfalls of about 30% in funding for projects because of soaring costs. So projects cannot be delivered as was envisaged and so they cannot level up as was envisaged—which is what led to the success of their bids in the first place. Can the Minister explain why levelling-up bids are not inflation-proofed and therefore cannot deliver on the Government’s own criteria?

[Lee Rowley]

We are happy to talk to councils about the challenges that they face, and we are happy to accept that inflation is a challenge. This is one of the reasons we need to get inflation out of the system. The difficult decisions made by the Chancellor will allow us to do that and will allow the money to go further, not just in the levelling-up fund but elsewhere in government, and in the private sector as a whole.

Caravan Site Licensing (Exemptions of Motor Homes) Bill

Lee Rowley Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for introducing the Bill and for the important points that he has made. As he said at the beginning of his speech, there has been a lot of water under the bridge since 1960, when the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act was passed following the 1959 report to which he referred.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The Minister is, as usual, giving an excellent summation. He has just mentioned the time that has elapsed between the initial legislation and this Bill. Does he agree that we should continue to look back at historical legislation to ensure that it is fit and proper for the present day?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is correct: we should always look to update our legislative canon. We should always seek to ensure that it works for the challenges and the opportunities that face us at the current time. To the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch: we should always look for opportunities to deregulate and remove legislation where we are able to so and where it is no longer relevant or proportionate.

With regards to the 1960 Act: I do accept that it has been around for many years—for much longer than I have been alive—and that it has worked in many instances. Equally, though, things have moved on. As my hon. Friend knows from his tireless work as chair of the all-party group on park homes, of which that is an element, there has been a need to move the regulation on in recent years, especially with the Mobile Homes Act 2013 and then the work that has been done in relation to park homes since then.

Before I come on to the specifics of the Bill in front of us today, let me just say that, at least on park homes, there has been a significant change in operation, in activity and in how owners of park homes work. It is fair to say—I hope my hon. Friend will agree—that the operation of park homes has got ahead of what the historical law said, which is why changes need to be made.

[Danny Kruger]

The Minister is right that the operation of park homes has, in a sense, outlived the legislation. One thing that has not changed is that most of these homes still receive their energy off grid. Can he respond to the point that we discussed earlier about the arrangement for supporting homes, including houseboats—particularly those on the Kennet and Avon canal that runs through Wiltshire? We want to see those homes receive the subsidy that has been promised to them as soon as possible. I understand that there have been some significant delays in implementing the new scheme, which is not the Government’s fault. Can he give us any update on that?

[Lee Rowley]

Like my hon. Friend, I also want to see the money that was announced some months ago to go to residents of park homes and to others who are off grid at the earliest possible opportunity. I know that my colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are working hard to do that, and they have recently made information available to us all, and I am passing that back to the residents of my constituency who live in park homes in Clay Cross, Old Tupton, Staveley, Marsh Lane, New Whittington and elsewhere. They are as keen as my hon. Friend’s constituents in Devizes are to make sure that progress is made on this payment and that we can support them during this difficult period with regard to energy.

In the short time that I have left, I wish to do two things, the first of which is to respond to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about the Bill itself. Secondly, I must say that I was the duty Minister back in November when my hon. Friend’s initial Bill on park homes was introduced. It was so universally supported in this place that, for the first time since 1997 or 1998, there was no need for anybody from the Treasury Bench to stand up and even argue why we thought it was a good idea. It is immensely pleasing that, where we can make collective progress on such issues as park homes, we are able to do so. I congratulate my hon. Friend on both introducing the Bill and on the progress that it has made—particularly today, when his Bill saw its Second Reading in the Lords.

[Mr Mohindra]

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch also spoke about the support for the motor home sector. Does he agree that part of this change of legislation will benefit the wealth creators, including that particular sector?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

That is an excellent opportunity for me to pass very quickly to the actual Bill itself. My hon. Friend highlights the important point outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about supporting the domestic tourism industry, the importance of setting people free, the importance of ensuring that regulation does not stand in the way of allowing people to make choices about what they want to do, how they want to do it, where they want to go on holiday and how they want to find places to do that within the United Kingdom. At the same time, as with all legislation—I speak as somebody who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch kindly points out, is very keen on deregulation—

[Mr Mohindra]

Will my hon. Friend give way again?

[Lee Rowley]

I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I am also very keen on deregulation. The question is always how to do that and how to unpick the legislation that is in place, which, in some instances, can be 60-plus years old. While I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point, and he raises immensely important questions about where it is proportionate for the law and regulation to start and to stop in these areas of economic activity, the Government are not today supporting the Bill. However, I and colleagues responsible for the portfolio in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are extremely happy—

Draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The regulations will complete the definition of higher-risk buildings, setting which buildings will be subject to legal requirements of the new regime for building safety, which was created by the Building Safety Act 2022. They are an important part of our ongoing reforms to ensure that all residents’ homes are a place of safety.

I will start by providing some context and background to the regulations. After the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the Government recognised the need for an overhaul of our building safety regime. In 2017 we appointed Dame Judith Hackitt to conduct an expert review of the current regime. Her review pointed to an industry that needed significant cultural and regulatory change, and identified a range of problems with the current building and fire safety regimes. Dame Judith Hackitt recommended a new approach to managing fire and structural safety risks in high-rise residential buildings. She advised that a new strengthened regulatory regime to improve accountability, risk management and assurance for higher-risk buildings should be brought forward. We accepted her recommendations, and in April 2022 the Building Safety Act received Royal Assent.

The Act establishes a new regime, which creates stronger oversight of and clearer accountability for, and places stronger legal duties on, those who are responsible for the safety of higher-risk buildings throughout their life cycle. It also brings forward stronger enforcement and sanctions to defer and rectify non-compliance. There are two parts to the new regime. The first covers the design and construction of new higher-risk buildings and the building work to existing higher-risk buildings. I will refer to that as the design and construction part. The second part establishes a new regulatory framework when higher-risk buildings are occupied. I will refer to that as the occupation part.

The definition of a higher-risk building is set, in part, by the Act. The Act sets the height thresholds for higher-risk buildings at 18 metres or seven storeys. It also states that buildings meeting the threshold that contain two residential units are in scope of the occupation part of the new regime. The regulations build on the provisions set out in the Act, completing the definition of higher-risk building and setting out exactly which buildings will be subject to the legal requirements of the new regime that will be directly overseen by the new Building Safety Regulator.

The regulations can be considered in several parts. First, they specify that hospitals, care homes and buildings containing at least two residential units that meet the 18-metre or seven-storey threshold will fall within the scope of design and construction part of the new regime. They also specify that certain types of buildings are excluded from the new regime. Hotels, secure residential institutions such as prisons, and military premises such as barracks, are excluded from both parts of the new regime. In addition, the regulations specify that hospitals and care homes are excluded from the occupation part of the regime. All other buildings with at least two residential units that meet the height threshold set in the Act will fall within the scope of the regime.

The regulations provide definitions for care homes, hospitals and secure residential institutions, based on the definitions in existing legislation. We have set this scope, as we want to ensure that proportionate rigour is applied to buildings where the risk of fire spread or structural collapse is higher. Dame Judith recommended focusing on residential buildings, and we agree that occupied non-residential buildings are, in the main, already adequately and proportionately regulated for through other legislation. Such building types are therefore not included in the new regime. We have responded to the concerns of stakeholders regarding the design and construction of care homes and hospitals by including them in the regime, ensuring that high-rise buildings that may be occupied by those who are unable to evacuate quickly or without assistance are designed and constructed within this scope.

The regulations also provide an overall technical definition of a building for higher-risk buildings. Some buildings under the new regime will be large, complex structures with multiple parts and connections. The building definition therefore allows a building to be defined depending on its design and structure. We have adopted a broad definition in that regard, so that when a new higher-risk building is constructed, the Building Safety Regulator can consider the overall structure while it is built.

For work in existing buildings and the occupation part of the new regime, the term “building” is more narrowly defined in certain circumstances—for example, when multiple structures are joined but there is no access between them—because we believe it will be disproportionate to apply the duties and responsibilities of the occupation regime across an entire set of structures, especially when some, taken in isolation, may not meet the criteria for higher risk. This definition seeks to ensure that the requirements of the new regime are applied proportionately and to buildings that present the higher risk. We will produce detailed guidance allowing those constructing and managing buildings under the new regime to clearly understand whether they are in scope.

The regulations also set out how to measure height and storeys for higher-risk buildings. To support this, they define ground level and gallery floors. The regulations specify that height should be measured from ground level to the top of the floor surface of the top storey of the building. Similarly, storeys should be counted from ground level to the top storey of the building. In both cases, any storeys below ground level, such as underground car parks, or any area containing only rooftop machinery, can and should be ignored. We have chosen these methods because they are understood; they are existing ways of measuring within the sector and mirror a method already taken in building regulations. The two-pronged test for measuring buildings will also help to prevent the gaming of the system and ensure that the right buildings are captured. It will be clear to those constructing and managing buildings under the new regime, and will support the aim of creating a proportionate and effective system.

The regulations are important to setting up the new regime for building safety and to bringing about the lasting change that we know is needed to help people to be and to feel safe in their homes. I hope I can rely on the Committee’s support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree for her questions and for confirming that the Opposition will support the regulations. We are grateful for their willingness to do so, as we collectively agree on the importance of the regulations’ progress, so that they can be operationalised and—hopefully, in time—improve the processes for the building and management of higher-risk buildings.

The hon. Lady asked specifically about inclusions and exclusions in regulations 7 and 8—an important and reasonable point. Ultimately, this is a question of proportionality, on which I recognise that different people here may have slightly different views. As the hon. Lady indicates, we did consult on the regulations, and received a variety of responses, including suggestions that the approach should be broader.

The key principle on which we have tried to build the regulations is that of the residential occupation of buildings. As hon. Members know, there are a broad variety of ways in which people live and manage the buildings in which they live. For other types of properties, where there tends to be a greater level of building management, by definition there is always likely to be somebody on site or nearby. For example, hotels will have an element of staff on site almost around the clock and there will be regular room management. Taking everything in the round, the view was that the proportionality was not there to extend the regulations to hotels at this stage. That is the core reason that there is a separate approach: there is a likelihood, in most such scenarios, that there will be more people on site and more management will be undertaken.

Within these rules—should it be appropriate; we are not proposing this now—we can in the future look at whether the proportionality is correct and whether we have got the thresholds right. There will be an opportunity for the Building Safety Regulator to propose changes and for the Government of the day to ask the regulator to look at whether changes would be proportionate, to report back, and then to come back to the House in the normal way to make those changes through secondary legislation, should that be appropriate.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation of proportionality. Is there also a cost implication?

[Lee Rowley]

I am not aware of a cost implication. From discussions with officials, and from working through the underlying purpose, reasons and rationale for the structure of the statutory instrument, my understanding is that it is simply a question of proportionality. It is primarily about acknowledging and recognising, as I think all hon. Members do, that hotels and properties that have the facets of hotels are operated, managed and staffed differently from residential buildings, and therefore it is proportionate to have a different approach for them.

I hope I have answered the question about definitional differences and the reasons for using one approach for some buildings and another for others. I am grateful to the Opposition for confirming their support. I hope we can make strong progress with the regulations, which set out the definitional changes necessary to build the new regulatory framework and architecture over the months ahead. Taken together, we hope they will improve safety for higher-risk and high-rise buildings over the long term in a proportionate and reasonable way that reflects and responds to what happened at Grenfell, and all the consequent discussions and debates.

Question put and agreed to.