Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I apologise for being slightly late—I had 9.30 in my diary; clearly, that was wrong.
The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, which have been part of the taxation landscape for more than a decade, allow planning authorities and the Mayor of London to raise a levy on new developments in their areas, as the Minister said. The CIL can be used to fund a wide range of infrastructure to support the development of the area where it is collected. The amount of money it raises nationally is significant. A study that the Department commissioned in 2016-17 put developer contributions through the CIL at nearly £1 billion. The CIL is a good and necessary vehicle to help provide the infrastructure that all Members want to see in our communities and, importantly, the facilities and amenities that our constituents desire. Money from the CIL has contributed to, for example, the building of Crossrail, flood defences, transport, GP surgeries, schools, local highways and green spaces.
In recent weeks, the CIL has been in the media for the wrong reasons. The Government’s moral authority has been damaged by the Westferry saga, in which the Secretary of State and the developer attempted to forgo CIL obligations to Tower Hamlets. Trust, Minister, must be rebuilt.
Covid-19 has had tragic consequences for many families. Loved ones have been lost across our communities and our constituencies. Our normal way of life has been curtailed and the economy has contracted on an alarming scale. Council budgets are under huge strain. Despite the Government’s promise to do whatever it takes to support councils, the cross-party Local Government Association highlights a funding gap of nearly £10 billion. Local authorities need every element of funding to support residents and provide the stimulus needed for economic recovery.
Labour Members recognise that some small and medium-sized developers are also under strain, and practical measures are required to help. If approved, as the Minister has said, this statutory instrument will give CIL collecting authorities or the Mayor time-limited discretion to defer certain payments by smaller developers who experience financial difficulties for reasons connected to the coronavirus crisis without incurring charges for late payments. Importantly and reassuringly, this will be done at the discretion of the charging authority, although they are obliged to consider the request. It is clear that some small and medium-sized businesses need urgent support, and that undoubtedly includes the construction sector.
Developers that do not make it through this tough period will not be able to pay obligations, will not be able to protect and create jobs, and will not be able to contribute to our economic recovery. Given that fact and the time-limited period that the changes cover, we will not oppose this statutory instrument. That does not mean that I do not have questions about it. The assessment criteria that charging authorities will be required to apply to small and medium-sized developers do not seem clear in the statutory instrument. What impact assessment has been done on councils’ ability to fund infrastructure projects and thus the potential impact on local authorities? Will the Minister review the take-up of these discretionary measures within, say, three months of the application?
In conclusion, we recognise that the SI gives short-term flexibility and discretion to both charging authorities and small and medium-sized developers. Covid-19 has shone a spotlight on our broken housing market. Although the mantra of “build, build, build” might capture some headlines, it must be qualified with an emphasis on building the right mix of tenure that will be sustainable for generations to come.
Draft Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2020
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani, and a pleasure to speak on the issue of devolution. As an MP who was put into this place to give more power and resources to regions and local communities, it is a special honour to be here today.
Before having the pleasure to represent Weaver Vale, I served as a city councillor in Manchester and worked for the current Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham. I put together his first-term manifesto—one that he is delivering on and that he will build on. It is fantastic to represent the Opposition on the Front Bench and to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central by playing a small part in this landmark moment, which we share as a Committee. We are all determined—especially my hon. Friend—to get the best deal for the people of South Yorkshire.
As happy as I am for my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central, I have to admit that I am more than a little jealous of him. One half of my constituency benefits from devolution, as it falls in the Liverpool city region authority and the careful hands of the Mayor, Steve Rotheram. The other half, comprising Cheshire West and Chester, does not. I have seen the difference that a combined authority makes to the part of my constituency contained within it. A local power funding accountability making a difference in health, skills, transport, planning, energy, jobs, and, in Barnsley’s case, education, can really transform communities and lives. I want that for the rest of my constituency in the Cheshire and Warrington areas, and I look forward to the long-awaited details from the Minister, who announced several coming down the line.
I have examples of real difference on the ground. The Liverpool Households into Work programme provides one-to-one support—a household approach—to tackle long-standing issues of unemployment to prevent people getting into unemployment and removing barriers over time. This will be more important than ever because of the national and international health, and undoubtedly economic, crisis. The Mersey tidal power project, which it was announced today will be directed by the industry veteran, Martin Land, will provide enough energy for 1 million homes, supply thousands of jobs and contribute towards a net zero target. Expansion of the Merseyrail system will not only provide the public transport that the region deserves but the infrastructure that it needs to—again, I will use the words—level up. This is a genuine example of how we can do that.
In Manchester, we have seen what can happen when devolution has real depth to it. Mayor Andy Burnham’s relentless focus on ending rough sleeping with the A Bed Every Night initiative has had considerable impact, again in partnership with recent Government initiatives around homelessness. Our pass gives young people in education free bus travel so that they can access all that the region has to offer. Bus reform, which is long overdue in Merseyside, the midlands and Greater Manchester, is something that devolution and Mayors can take forward.
Our national situation is very different from what it was at the outset of devolution. The medical and economic impacts of covid-19 have further exposed the urgent need for local decision making, something that I am sure we can all agree on in Committee today. We cannot continue to tolerate the inequality of power driving inequalities of prosperity across the country, especially given the challenges that we now face. This needs to happen through radical change, not by cosmetic tinkering with the Government firmly gripping the power and the purse strings, which results only in delegated authority rather than what we need: local decision making with the funding and power behind it in genuine devolution.
Today, South Yorkshire takes a big step on its devolution journey. May it continue to do so and may others follow closely behind. We await crucial tests of the Government’s commitment to devolution later this year, including the White Paper that the Minister mentioned. However, will he use his time to outline the Government’s timeline for the devolution deals that have as yet to reach the House?
In conclusion, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central is eager to get the order through as soon as possible so that he can use the powers and resources to create a locally led pathway to greater prosperity, health and wellbeing for all the citizens of South Yorkshire. I wish the Mayor well in his historic endeavour.
Business and Planning Bill
Mike Amesbury ExcerptsMonday 29th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Business and Planning Act 2020 View all Business and Planning Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 29 June 2020 (PDF) - (29 Jun 2020)
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert
“, and—
(c) to which a temporary traffic regulation order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is operative and will remain so for the time period of the pavement licence, and which has been made pursuant to the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 as amended by the Traffic Orders Procedure (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020.”
The purpose of this amendment is to include pavements where temporary measures are in place already to deal with the effects of coronavirus, by assisting social distancing and enabling active travel, such as cycling and walking.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 2 to 8 stand part.
Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 7, line 37, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1B) applies for the purposes of—
(a) the reference in section 1(5)(a) to a highway to which Part 7A of the Highways Act 1980 applies, and
(b) the references to traffic orders in section 3(6)(a)(i) and (b) (which, by virtue of section 3(7), have the same meaning as in that Part of that Act).
(1B) The definition of “traffic order” in section 115A(2) of the Highways Act 1980 is to be treated as if it included an order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 made pursuant to subsection (1)(b) or (c) of that section under the procedure provided for by regulation 18 of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/1215) (procedure for temporary orders made for purposes connected to coronavirus).”
This amendment secures that the provisions about pavement licences apply where a highway is subject to a temporary traffic order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for reasons relating to coronavirus.
Clauses 9 and 10 stand part.
Amendment 1, in clause 11, page 19, line 13, at end insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State may by regulations apply sections 172F to 172L of the Licensing Act 2003 to vehicles and moveable structures in order to vary the requirement under section 189(4) of that Act that a vehicle or moveable structure not permanently situated in the same place be treated for the purposes of that Act as if it were premises situated at only that place.”
This amendment is intended to provide flexibility for mobile licensed premises which are already licensed in one place to benefit from the temporary provisions of this Act in other locations.
Clauses 11 to 26 stand part.
New clause 1—Support for the tourism and hospitality sector—
“(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) carry out a review of the effect of Part 1 of this Act on the tourism and hospitality sector in England and Wales;
(b) set out the conclusions of the review in a report;
(c) publish the report; and
(d) arrange for copies of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament before 15 September 2020.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must also make an assessment of the effects of this Act on the tourism and hospitality sector in England and Wales compared with possible further and complementary measures, including, but not limited to, extending through to 2021 the period of operation in that sector of—
(a) the furlough scheme,
(b) Bounce Back loans, or
(c) other grants or financial support from public funds.”
The purpose of this new clause is for a review to examine the effect of this Bill’s proposals for the tourism and hospitality sector through to 2021, compared to extending the furlough scheme and the grants currently available.
New clause 2—Monthly report on hospitality sector measures—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of this Act’s provisions on the hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism sector.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must be published within one month of the day in which this Act is passed and at least once in every month thereafter up to and including January 2021.
(3) Every report under this section must include relevant contextual information including (but not limited to) the effect of the changes to coronavirus job retention scheme on the hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism sector.
(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for a copy of each report made under this section to be laid before each House of Parliament.”
The purpose of this new clause is to require the Secretary of State to publish a monthly report for the next six months on the impact of the Bill in the context of changes to the coronavirus job retention scheme on sectors including hospitality.
New clause 4—Explanation for extending periods under Part 2 of this Act—
“(1) Before any exercise of the powers listed in subsection (2) to make regulations under this Part of this Act the Secretary of State must make a statement on the reasons in each case for extending the provisions of this Act beyond 1 April 2021.
(2) The powers listed in this subsection are—
(a) section 16(7), on conditions relating to construction working hours;
(b) sections 17(8) and 17(9), on extending the duration of certain planning permissions;
(c) section 18(7), on extensions in connection with outline planning permission.
(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for a copy of the statement required under this section to be laid before each House of Parliament.”
The purpose of this new clause is to require the Secretary of State to provide a full explanation to the House before seeking to extend beyond 1 April 2021 any measures under this Part 2 of this Bill in relation to planning permission or construction working hours.
New clause 5—Costs on local authorities—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make an assessment of the additional costs to local authorities of the effects of Part 2 of this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State must consult local authorities before making the assessment under subsection (1).
(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for a copy of the assessment required under this section to be laid before each House of Parliament.”
The intention of this new clause is to require the Secretary of State to publish a report detailing the extra costs accrued by councils as a result of processing increased volumes of planning applications through the new deemed consent route and additional environmental approvals.
New clause 6—Rolling three month parliamentary reviews—
(1) This Act expires at the end of a review period unless the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition is that the House of Commons has, following a debate, agreed a Motion moved during the review period by a Minister of the Crown in the form in subsection (3).
(3) The form of the Motion is—
“That the provisions of the Business and Planning Act 2020 should not yet expire.”
(4) The first review period begins on the day 90 days after the day on which this Act is passed.
(5) Subsequent review periods begin on the day 90 days after the day on which the previous review period ended.
(6) A review period ends at the end of the seventh sitting day after the day on which it begins.
(7) In this section, a “sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”
The purpose of this new clause is to provide a rolling review period for this legislation so that it can be revisited 3 months after it is passed and then every subsequent three months if necessary.
Mike Amesbury
The Government are asking Parliament to expedite the parliamentary progress of this Bill. In everyday circumstances, it would not be fast-tracked, but would be subject to a lower gear of progress. We are not in ordinary times or everyday circumstances, and the Opposition recognise, and have indeed constructively argued, that many of the measures outlined in the Bill need to be in place before the summer recess in order to be effective.
If legislation is not passed in time, hospitality businesses and their customers will not be able to benefit from the flexibility and covid safety arrangement measures relating to outdoor seating and alcohol service over the coming months. Likewise, road hauliers and others are dependent on heavy duty vehicle and passenger-carrying vehicle testing and licencing, and construction projects may be paused or delayed without planning permissions being extended. Furthermore, the measures will facilitate bounce back loans by disapplying unfair relationship provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Our position on the Bill is one of constructive engagement. We want to provide support for hard-pressed businesses while giving additional freedoms and flexibility to respond to covid-19 spatial requirements. Although the additional freedoms will be welcomed by many, I ask the Minister for reassurance that checks and balances are in place in order to maintain social order. We want to ensure access for those with visual impairment or limited mobility, and the right to peace and quiet in residential areas must be maintained. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) will come on to that later.
It is also important that these measures are temporary and time-sensitive, with constructive engagement at the heart of any proposals to extend the operating hours of a construction site. Good planning is an enabler, rather than a constraint. Consultation helps to deliver good community, business and place outcomes.
Amendments 2 and 3 are common-sense amendments that aim to extend to more businesses the provisions in the Bill and ensure a streamlined procedure for businesses serving food and drink to access pavement licences. We welcome the provisions that will allow cafés, restaurants and pubs to reopen quickly and serve more customers, while maintaining a safe environment. The amendments would simply extend those measures to include spaces where temporary pavements have been created or extended for social distancing measures, so that businesses will be able to take advantage of that. I note the calls for caution. This needs to be done sensibly, and the impact on staff, local residents, local authorities and disabled pedestrians must be kept in mind.
New clause 2 addresses a vital omission in the Bill. The food and accommodation sector has had the largest decline in economic output of all sectors with available data in this crisis. An extraordinary drop of 92% between February and April led to almost 6% of workers being furloughed. Despite the help the Bill offers to businesses, it does not offer “business as normal.” It is vital that we understand the impact the measures in this Bill will have on these industries, especially considering the support the Government are currently providing through the furlough scheme. We need not undo the good work done by the scheme so far. The new clause would require the Government to publish a report every six months on the impact of the Bill in the context of the coronavirus job retention scheme. Such a report is vital to the understanding of the ongoing impact on hospitality, tourism, leisure and the travel sector. Only by knowing the scale of the problem after the measures in the Bill are implemented will the Government be able to match it with the proper level of tailored support that this sector will clearly need.
New clause 3 addresses the lack of regular data provided for applications for coronavirus support schemes. The Government do not currently release data on the number of businesses that fail to access loan schemes. Current data relates only to the total number of applications and the number of loans granted. Again, we must know how well the schemes are working in order to help businesses through this crisis, so I hope the Government will consider this new clause.
New clause 4 relates to part 2 of the Bill, which in turn relates to my brief, and the Minister’s brief, of planning and construction. I broadly welcome, as does the Royal Town Planning Institute, the planning measures in the Bill that will ensure that building work can safely restart, especially in light of the “build, build, build” message that will be detailed tomorrow in the Prime Minister’s much trailed speech. However, considering the impacts of longer working hours and extended planning permissions on neighbourhoods is important. Under the new clause, the Secretary of State would return to the House if he wished to extend the measures relating to construction working hours or extensions to current planning permissions beyond 1 April 2021. That is not to say that we would necessarily oppose any extensions, but it is vital that these provisions are not extended without explanation, and the new clause addresses that.
Finally, new clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report detailing the extra costs of processing these measures for local authorities. It is not clear at the moment what the measures contained in the Bill will cost local authorities in practice. Throughout this crisis they have been working around the clock to protect their communities from the covid-19 outbreak and its immediate impact. The Bill highlights that local authorities will also be crucial in the recovery phase. Their work has, as my colleagues my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) have said, come at a huge financial cost. Austerity measures over the past 10 years have had a devastating impact on local authority budgets, and despite the rhetoric of “whatever it takes,” the Government have not provided local authorities with anywhere near the level of funding they need in the wake of the immediate crisis. The provisions in this Bill will certainly result in yet more work and higher costs for local authorities, including for local planning departments, which have already had to cut spending by half in the last decade. Given that, it is essential that we understand fully what the impact of these changes will be on local authority finances and that local authorities are fully consulted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) has made clear, the measures in the Bill will also not have a uniform impact across the country, and that needs to be taken into account.
We have enjoyed constructive communication on this Bill with the Government, and these amendments are tabled in a similarly constructive way. I look forward to the Government providing us with the detail and assurances on the broad range of issues I have outlined.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Diolch, Dame Eleanor, and thank you for calling me so early in the debate. I think this must be a first for a Plaid Cymru Member; it is certainly a first for me. It is a great pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, and that is not something that I say very often because I do not follow shadow Ministers, so once again I am grateful to the Chair.
Christopher Pincher
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s concern and I understand why she raises those points. However, I simply reiterate that introducing a rolling review would kill certain aspects of the Bill and reduce the certainty and clarity that businesses and planners are looking for. It may also jeopardise the conclusion of the Bill before the summer recess, and we need to get it on the statute book so that businesses around our country can benefit from its provisions over the summer months.
Let me reiterate the importance of this Bill for our economy in these extraordinary times. As we emerge from this pandemic, we need to do all we can to support our economic recovery and help businesses adjust to a new and safe way of working. I therefore encourage the House to support amendment 3 tabled by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), and I encourage the proponents of all other amendments to withdraw them.
Mike Amesbury
This has been a constructive debate, and I thank Members across the Chamber for their positive contributions and suggestions, which I hope will be taken up in the other place. I thank the Government, and I thank the Minister in particular for his positive engagement. We are happy to withdraw amendment 2 in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I look forward to moving amendment 3. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Interpretation
Amendment made: 3, page 7, line 37, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1B) applies for the purposes of—
(a) the reference in section 1(5)(a) to a highway to which Part 7A of the Highways Act 1980 applies, and
(b) the references to traffic orders in section 3(6)(a)(i) and (b) (which, by virtue of section 3(7), have the same meaning as in that Part of that Act).
(1B) The definition of “traffic order” in section 115A(2) of the Highways Act 1980 is to be treated as if it included an order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 made pursuant to subsection (1)(b) or (c) of that section under the procedure provided for by regulation 18 of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/1215) (procedure for temporary orders made for purposes connected to coronavirus).”—(Mike Amesbury.)
This amendment secures that the provisions about pavement licences apply where a highway is subject to a temporary traffic order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for reasons relating to coronavirus.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will now suspend the House for three minutes to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of hon. Members for the next.
Westferry Printworks Development
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
In this afternoon’s debate, we have heard strong and powerful interventions from parliamentarians, particularly from the Opposition Benches, that were centrally about restoring faith and trust in our planning system. In fact, it is about the integrity and honour of our Ministers and the moral authority of the Government—an authority that has been undermined by the actions of some, which imply that the rules, and in some cases even the laws, do not apply to them. From Dominic Cummings to, seemingly, the Secretary of State, it is a case of do as I say, not as I do.
I thank many of the MPs who have spoken today in defence of the standards required in the ministerial code and an accountable transparent planning system. I thank the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), for opening the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Select Committee, who spoke eloquently as always, and the new hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), who gave a personal and touching maiden speech on which I congratulate him. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones).
I also thank Government Members for their creative attempt to defend the indefensible. At the heart of their argument, the defence of the Secretary of State is that he was merely caught in a timeline of an extraordinary set of coincidences. There was the coincidental seating arrangement at a dinner, with Richard Desmond as well as four senior executives from Northern & Shell and Mace; the coincidence that the Minister was shown a four-minute promotional video for the £1 billion development by the said guests on the table; the planning approval that coincidentally occurred the day before a £50 million levy—I stress: levy—would be charged; and the coincidence that a £12,000 donation was paid into Tory coffers just two weeks later. Just coincidences.
What is not a coincidence—Tory Members skated over this one—but is a fact of the matter is that the Secretary of State overruled the planning inspectorate, was taken to the High Court by Tower Hamlets Council, and has admitted acting unlawfully, with apparent bias. I stress in big bold capital letters: unlawfully, with apparent bias. Fact. What is also a fact is that the Secretary of State has resisted every request and every attempt to disclose all correspondence leading up to this unlawful planning direction, up until this debate today. I know that, as we have been speaking in this debate, the media have been well briefed about what is going their way. If the Minister had nothing to hide, he knew what to do, and he has had weeks to do it, so why wait until now and go through all this pain and grief and claim that these are cheap political points? Unlawful. Broke the law.
At least we know now, unlike when I first called for an investigation by the Cabinet Secretary, that Mr Desmond donated to the Minister’s party after his application was approved. We know that the Minister watched a video all about the development at a fundraising dinner. In fact, Richard Desmond has been quoted by Opposition Members as saying, “He got the gist after three or four minutes.” Those were his words, not those of Labour or Scottish National party Members. The Secretary of State not only saved Mr Desmond £50 million in money that would have gone into community development by approving the application when he did—
Mike Amesbury
Yes, it was a levy, as the hon. Member is right to point out, so it would not have been his personal money out of his pocket, but it was undoubtedly a saving. After the development was given a direction— I will not say called in, but given a direction, given after the decision was overruled as unlawful—Mr Desmond saved another £106 million or so by including fewer affordable houses. Those are the very homes that many of our key workers require. We have all clapped for them every Thursday. Every Thursday, we hear “Homes for the new heroes!” Surely they need and deserve those homes.
The Housing Minister, at a recent meeting of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, was pressed and pressed again on social housing. How many social houses? What is the target for social housing? How many are going to be built? He was asked four, five or six times, but when we check Hansard to see if there was an answer, we find there was no answer at all—he said there were no targets for social housing, none at all. Under Labour, an average of just under 28,000 social houses to rent were built per year; last year, under this Government, the number was 6,600, although I might be being a little bit generous there. [Interruption.] Don’t talk to me about the definition of affordable housing—the vandalised version, which is no real definition at all. It is not true.
To conclude, the Prime Minister, outlining his expectations in the ministerial code, is very clear that there must not be any misuse of taxpayers’ money and no “actual or perceived” conflicts of interest, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central. If the Prime Minister is so confident that the Secretary of State has abided by the code and has nothing to hide, we would expect that he and Government Members will support this Humble Address and publish in full—I stress, in full—all documentation and emails associated with this application. That includes correspondence from the advisers, the lobbyists and the Prime Minister himself—in full. It will be interesting to see what has been spun to the media while we have been having this debate.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christopher Pincher
As I said in answer to the previous question, pace is crucial in this regard, which is why the Chancellor has made available in this financial year £1 billion to remediate those buildings that suffer from non-ACM cladding. That is on top of the £600 million that we have made available for ACM-clad buildings. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is going to be necessary for a great many buildings to be remediated. We would expect some of that funding to come forward from the building owners so that those who let or are leaseholders in the buildings do not fall liable for the funds. We believe that £1 billion, now, to get on with the job, will go a great deal along the way to make sure that buildings are made safe for their residents.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Three years on from the Grenfell disaster, when 72 people tragically lost their lives, 245 buildings are clad in dangerous ACM and at least 1,700 are clad in equally flammable material. If the remedial work continues at the same snail’s pace, it will take up to 39 years for the work to be completed, yet if someone wants a controversial billion-pound planning application approved, it seems that high-value chicken dinners get things done. Will the Minister advise the House as to what influence can be applied to quickly make all our high-rise buildings safe once and for all?
Christopher Pincher
First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place; this is the first time since he took up his shadow position that we have sparred across the Dispatch Box—
Christopher Pincher
It is the first time that the hon. Gentleman and I have sparred across the Dispatch Box—that is correct, so let us hold on to that.
The hon. Gentleman was rather ungenerous: we have made £1.6 billion available to remediate the buildings that need it. Remediation work has begun or been completed on 95% of all social-sector buildings that had unsafe ACM cladding on them, and remediation work has begun or been completed on 40% of such buildings in the private sector, while the other 60% have their plans in train. We want these buildings to be made safe as quickly as possible. That is why we have put the money on the table, why we will press for action to be taken and why the buildings will be made safe under this Government.
Homelessness
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick
I will give way in a moment, if I may.
The strategy that we published in 2018, backed at that time by a £100 million package, is a vital step towards our shared goal. The strategy is built around three pillars: first, preventing rough sleeping before it happens; secondly, intervening at crisis points; and, thirdly, helping people to recover with flexible support that meets their needs.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Anybody who has spent time meeting rough sleepers, particularly those who slept rough for a longer period, will know that a dog can be an incredibly important companion, and it is true that a large proportion of shelters do not take individuals with pets, although some do—in fact most of those I have visited recently, particularly in central London, allow them. Nevertheless, I would encourage shelters to find a way through this problem, because it is a significant issue.
I turn now to the issue we have already discussed around health and the underlying causes of rough sleeping. In 2018, 41% of the rough-sleeping population in London were assessed as having a drug dependency need, 42% as having an alcohol dependency issue, and 50% as having a mental health support need. Recent figures also show that 80% of rough sleepers who died in London had mental health needs. The data is very clear: people sleeping rough with a mental health condition are significantly more likely to die than those without a mental health need.
We must not forget that behind each statistic is an individual with their own story. They all deserve the support we can give them. That is why my Department is now working closely with the Department for Health and Social Care to ensure they get the support they need. That support includes £30 million in funding from NHS England to support specialist mental health services and £2 million to help test different models of community-based healthcare, particularly focused on substance misuse and mental health treatment. I can assure the House that as we progress and develop our rough sleeping strategy we will do everything we can to co-ordinate it with the Department for Health and Social Care.
Mike Amesbury
If the Secretary of State was to be kicked out of his house and find himself in the unfortunate circumstance of living on the street, of course mental health issues, depression, drug dependency and alcoholism might then result, but the Government have cut homelessness support by £1 billion a year over the last decade—this is nothing new—and cuts have consequences. I think, for example, of the 726 people—an increase of 50%—who lost their lives last year
Robert Jenrick
As I have said, we are increasing funding for this issue. We are spending £1.2 billion. This year, we are adding £430 million and more—for example, the £112 million I have devoted this year to the rough sleeping initiative. That is a 30% increase, and the funding the previous year was more than the year before that, so the Government are giving this national issue the resources it deserves. I hope that meets with approval across the House.
We are also taking action by implementing the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which will play a crucial role in tackling this issue. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and all those who played an instrumental role in taking this ambitious legislative reform forward. It means that everyone, not just those deemed a priority, can get the support they need to prevent them from becoming homeless. The legislation also means that people can access support earlier, with new duties on public bodies, from the NHS to our prisons, to intervene earlier, and councils are now providing support of up to 56 days, ahead of someone needing help finding secure accommodation.
Since the Act was implemented, more than 130,000 households have had their homelessness successfully prevented or relieved, and nearly two thirds of the applicants receiving help have been single households who previously would have been less likely to have been offered support.
The duty to refer, which came into force in October 2018, is also encouraging strong local partnerships. It requires public authorities such as our prisons, our emergency departments and Jobcentre Plus to refer service users who they think may be homeless, or threatened with homelessness, to a local housing authority of their choice. That is a clear example of public services working closely together in the interests of the most vulnerable in our society.
We are also taking decisive action on the delivery of fairer, more affordable housing of all tenures, so that we can prevent and reduce homelessness and rough sleeping. The Government have delivered more than 464,000 affordable homes since 2010. Our commitment to increasing the housing supply means that we will go even further than that, delivering, on average, more affordable homes each year than the last Labour Government—and there is more to come, with 250,000 more new affordable homes due to be delivered by March 2022 through the affordable homes programme, which we have boosted with a further £9 billion.
In our manifesto we committed ourselves to a further affordable homes programme, which I hope will be even more ambitious. That commitment is underlined by our manifesto pledge to publish a social housing White Paper, which will set out more measures to empower tenants, provide greater redress and better regulation, and improve the quality of social housing.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Secretary of State rightly refers to action, but when? That is the key question my constituents are asking in the Winnington part of Weaver Vale and Sandymoor. We have had consultation upon consultation; when will there be action? We need action now, not careful consideration.