Vagrancy Act 1824

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, I believe for the first time in Westminster Hall, Sir Charles. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing the debate. I congratulate her on her question to the Secretary of State that elicited the excellent response that he was minded to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, especially given that there has been considerable opposition from the Government, over an extended period of time, to repealing that legislation.

I have lobbied many Ministers responsible for upholding this Act to sponsor its repeal and to encourage the Government to repeal it. The Minister is new and when he replies to the debate I am sure that we can look forward to the announcement of the timetable for introducing the legislation necessary to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824. I declare my interest as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness. It is in that capacity, and in my role as a member of the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, that I have been investigating the causes of homelessness and trying to put this right over many years in this place.

We know that every person who is homeless is a unique case. We cannot put people in pigeonholes or say, “It is because of this or because of that.” There are some frequent reasons why people become homeless in the first place. The ending of a private sector tenancy is still the most common reason, but another is relationship breakdown, which very sadly leads to many people being forced to sleep rough in the first place. Before the passing of my Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, single people would not receive any help whatsoever from local authorities. I am glad we have put that right.

Another reason is people becoming unemployed through no fault of their own. They may be made redundant or lose their job because a company goes out of business. It could be that they have suffered an accident and are no longer able to work. Additional reasons, as others have mentioned, include addiction to drugs, alcohol and gambling, and substance abuse also must be taken into consideration. It is fair to say, therefore, that there is no one single cause for someone becoming homeless in the first place.

We also know that during this pandemic private sector rent arrears have increased dramatically. The National Landlords Association estimates that 7% of those with a private sector lease are in rent arrears. That may not sound like very much, but given that 3.5 million people are renting properties, that means that 245,000 people could be made homeless when the moratorium on evictions comes to an end. Indeed, they could be prevented from getting another lease if a county court judgement is made against them. Many of them may end up being street homeless if we are not too careful.

Clearly, we have come a long way with legislation over many years. Looking back, we can see that 1977 was the first time that local authorities had a duty to house those in priority need. It is easy to think now that of course local authorities should have that duty, but it was not that long ago that there was no such requirement. That reform was welcome.

In 2016, I had the opportunity and privilege to promote a private Member’s Bill, which subsequently became the Homelessness Reduction Act. I am very proud of that. It was done on a cross-party basis, with pre-legislative scrutiny carried out by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and supported by all parties in the House of Commons. That went on the statute book in April 2017, just before the general election, but it did not come into force until April 2018. Its most important duty is the duty to refer people who are threatened with being homeless to a local authority for assistance, but that did not come into force until October 2018. More than 30,000 people have been prevented from becoming homeless as a result.

The vast majority of people who become homeless in the first place say the same thing: “All we need is help and advice to get ourselves into an alternative property.” When being triaged by a local authority, however, they would frequently be greeted by the same response: “Sorry, we can’t help you. Go and sleep on a park bench or sleep in a shop doorway, and hopefully one of the housing charities will come along and help you.” People sleeping rough for the first time are extremely vulnerable, and sadly, those sleeping rough die at a very early age. The average age of men dying on the streets is 46. We have to combat that.

We should congratulate the Government on the Everyone In programme and celebrate its success. It is extremely welcome that it has taken more than 30,000 people off the streets and put them in safe accommodation. It is now time, however, to review not just the success of that policy but how we go forward. I congratulate the Government on providing money for move-on accommodation and on ensuring as far as possible that those people do not return to the streets, unless it is their absolute choice to do so. In addition to discussing the Vagrancy Act, we should also review all housing legislation and make sure that obstacles are not being placed in the way of assisting people into proper and decent accommodation.

I am a great advocate for Housing First, meaning that we take people off the streets, provide them with secure accommodation, and then build a network of support around them. The main reason for that is that it is no good just giving someone a property to live in when they have suffered from addictions or other problems. They actually need help and support to rebuild their lives, and it is only once they have a secure roof over their heads that we can do that. The trials and pilot schemes have been very successful and we should aim to roll them out so that this becomes a means of prevention, rather than cure, which is always the best approach.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster rightly pointed out, the Vagrancy Act was introduced in the wake of the Napoleonic wars, during which men in particular had been crippled. There were no jobs for them, no national health service and no welfare state. We are now in a much stronger position and should deal with people who are homeless on the basis of their health and enable them to rebuild their lives.

It is right, however, that we have legislation to deal with aggressive begging in particular. My advice to anyone who asks me has always been: “Don’t give money to someone who is homeless and unfortunately living on the streets—give them help and support. Direct them to a charity where they can get the help and support they need to rebuild their lives, rather than potentially fuel their addictions”.

Surely now is the time that, above all else, we should say to the people of this country that people who are homeless should not be arrested but assisted. By assisting them we can help them rebuild their lives and rebuild the dignity of people across the country. We do need to build more social housing and provide a rental basis that people can afford. That is not a debate for today, but let us hear from the Minister the actions that the Government are going to take to repeal this legislation. Although we will need legislation to deal with aggressive begging, we need to make sure that people who are homeless do not feel threatened by the police and those in authority but realise that they can be assisted to rebuild their lives. Thank you, Sir Charles, for allowing me to participate in this excellent debate.

Liverpool City Council

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point; it is one that I made in my opening remarks. This is a rare intervention. Interventions of this nature have been made on only a handful of occasions in the last 20 years. We do so carefully and with a heavy heart, but because it is necessary to ensure that this council can reform and change its ways and that we can ensure that people in Liverpool get the good-quality government that they deserve. This is not a reflection on local government more generally across this country. In fact, we are taking this action to defend the good name of local government across the country, and I pay tribute to officers and councillors the length and breadth of England for the good work they do day in, day out.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), for the comments that they made in a bipartisan manner. Clearly, one of the issues of concern to Liverpool residents will be what extra costs may be borne as a result of this decision. Clearly, the commissioners may be in place for some considerable period of time, so will my right hon Friend reassure us that Liverpool council tax payers will not be picking up the costs of these commissioners, if they are duly appointed, and that if the commissioners recommend further proposals to him on expenditure, he will consider those appropriately?

[Robert Jenrick]

The costs of the report that has been undertaken by Max Caller and of the commissioners will be borne by Liverpool City Council. However, I expect that the work to come will save the taxpayers of Liverpool a great deal of money, because underlying the report by Mr Caller is the sense that many millions of pounds have been wasted as a result of mismanagement by the city council, and I very much hope that we can put that right.

Fire Safety Bill

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) [V]]

Nearly four years after Grenfell, it is very disappointing that the Government still have not finalised support to make people’s homes safe, and that leaseholders are still waiting for the protection that Ministers promised multiple times, and that the Lords amendments could help deliver.

I am in touch with more than 3,000 households affected in my constituency, and hundreds of leaseholders have completed my online survey. These are people left in limbo by our Government, but already facing the cost of service charges or waking watches. There are also those facing costs where there is an uncertain timeline for the work. Seven out of 10 people who completed my survey said that works had been identified as necessary but they had yet to get the date for repairs. There are also people whom the Government deliberately excluded from help with compartmentalisation safety measures, and people living in buildings less than 18 metres tall. I am working with people living in 28 such buildings, and with people who have seen delays in Government action, despite the Government having failed to ensure that regulations meant that house building and renovations were safe. Of course, other people have seen Government guidance needlessly affect their insurance or mortgage.

Today, I am supporting the Lords amendments, but I am also asking the Government not to profiteer from this situation. I am seeking, with cross-party backing, including from the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), who has already spoken, a VAT exemption on essential works required through fire safety surveys, in line with VAT changes made three years ago for some new builds. If that measure is adopted, the Government’s building safety fund will go 20% further, as money will not be lost to VAT. That fund goes on not luxury changes, but essential remedial works required by the Government to make people’s homes safe. Put simply, we cannot go from dishy Rishi eating out to help out last year, to rip-off Rishi profiteering from people’s misery today. I hope that this cross-party request will gain further support, and that Ministers will meet campaigners on this issue.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). The Government have moved swiftly to try to remediate the cladding on tall buildings. There has been slow progress, but progress is being made. In medium-rise buildings—those below six storeys—leaseholders will have to bear a cost, but we do not know what that cost will be, and we do not yet know the results of the proposals for the loan scheme. It is quite clear that the Government are trying to find a way forward, but we have yet to see the details.

There is also the issue of fire safety in buildings. The Bill is vital to preserving fire safety across the country in all buildings, whatever their structure. The Grenfell inquiry lifted the lid on the scandal of the tall buildings erected in this country without following proper fire safety regulations. Once a survey is carried out on a building, we know the extent to which work is required, whether regulations were followed, when the building was put up and whether the materials used in the building were correct. The people who provided substandard materials should be made to replace them free of charge. If builders put buildings up without following the proper regulations, we should go back to them and required them to carry out the remediation.

The one set of people who are completely and utterly innocent is the leaseholders. They did not build their building; they bought their lease in the belief that it was safe and secure. We should send out the strongest signal tonight that leaseholders should not have to pay a penny piece towards the cost of remedying things that were not their fault.

The Minister may say that the Bill is the wrong place to put that provision, but it will take at least 18 months—possibly two years—to bring the building safety Bill to fruition. Leaseholders do not have time to wait for us to deliberate, so let us join together and send the signal that leaseholders do not have to pay a penny. If the Government believe that Lords amendment 4B is somehow flawed, let them come forward with an amendment that is satisfactory and will result in the key outcome: not requiring leaseholders to pay.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]]

I am pleased to see the Bill back before us, and proud that it was an amendment that I tabled last June in Committee—new clause 3—that first introduced the principle that leaseholders must be protected from the extortionate costs of fire safety remediation. I am very grateful to my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock for taking up the idea in the other place, and to the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and the Lord Bishops of St Albans and London for improving it along the way.

The arguments for and against protecting leaseholders in the Bill are now well established. The Government continue to attempt to fob us off with the inadequate and flawed remediation fund, but fire safety experts have debunked the fund’s arbitrary 18-metre cut-off. Meanwhile, leaseholders keep trying in vain to tell the Government that it is not just about cladding; buildings of any height would still be left liable for non-cladding remediation of missing fire breaks, flammable balconies or dangerous insulation, as well as having to pay for waking watches and additional alarms.

I have listened with interest as Ministers continue to reject the amendment. We hear time and again that it is not sufficiently detailed, that it would require substantial drafting of primary legislation and that it could cause litigation, delay remediation work and have unintended consequences—that is a new one. The Government claim that it is Members who back the amendment who are apparently responsible for causing delays to the Bill, when it is the Government who have taken almost four years to bring forward a two-page Bill. Not once have the Government acknowledged the risks of the Bill passing without the amendment. Not once have the Government addressed the fact that financial costs will be incurred by leaseholders from day one if the Bill goes through without the amendment.

The Government have spent nine months finding fault with the amendment, but at no point have they brought forward their own. Leaseholders cannot rely on the flawed building safety fund, nor can they wait any longer for promises of hope in a building safety Bill that may or may not help in the future. Ministers can see the strength of feeling in this House, even among those on their own Benches, and they can hear the pleas from millions of desperate homeowners. This amendment may not be perfect, but it is the only proposal on the table to protect leaseholders from the financial repercussions of fire safety defects that are not of their making. I call on all Members to do the right thing and support it.

Residential Leaseholders and Interim Fire Safety Costs

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing the debate, and it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) in highlighting the concerns arising in the debate.

Given the circumstances, I want to concentrate on two areas. The first is cladding on tall buildings. I congratulate the Government on securing funding to help to remediate that cladding, but the problem is that the cost of removing cladding on tall buildings is often dwarfed by the cost of the fire safety measures that must also be implemented. It is quite clear, as things stand, that leaseholders will be saddled with the costs of the fire safety measures that are required, as well as the costs of the cladding. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would respond to the issue of what exactly is included in the remediation of cladding. At the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, there was some confusion when it was suggested that external areas that are not involved in the cladding, such as different balconies, will now be included in the grant scheme.

The other problem is that we are now told that once a fire assessment takes place, the remediation grants will not be available unless leaseholders sign up to fixing the fire safety issues as well, but those involve eye-watering sums of money. The arrangements, of course, are complex. I think we all agree leaseholders should not have to pay for the remediation, but the issue then is who should. I take the view that the taxpayer should not pay for it. The developers, building owners and indeed suppliers of materials should pay for the fire safety remediation, as well as the remediation of unsafe cladding. There is no doubt that the testing regime was unfit for purpose at the time in question, but emerging evidence from the Grenfell inquiry suggests that manufacturers deliberately decided to use the position on testing to cheat on the system. If so, they should be forced to carry out the remediation at their cost.

Equally, there is the challenge of insurance, mortgages and the values of the properties that are affected. Clearly, at the moment, leaseholders cannot be expected to wait for the introduction of the building safety Bill. It will take more than two years for it to come into operation, and leaseholders cannot wait. We need clarity on the point that the fees and costs will be picked up and that the leaseholders will not have to pay them. We also know that it will take an extended period to carry out the works.

I will rest my remarks there. I hope that we will get a response from the Minister on exactly what the scheme covers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

In a moment, I will call Dame Margaret Hodge. The speaker after her has withdrawn, so then we will go to Hilary Benn.

Rough Sleeping

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We are very committed to building more homes. We want to build more homes than any Government before—homes of all types and tenures and in all parts of the country, including in inner-city areas such as Islington, which he represents. That is why we have taken steps such as enabling councils to borrow, and we are supporting them through our record affordable homes programme worth £11.5 billion to build more social homes, affordable homes and homes for shared ownership.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly makes the point that we need more move-on accommodation. That is why I persuaded my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last year to bring forward the £430 million that we needed to invest in 6,000 new units of move-on accommodation. They will be in all parts of the country and every council, including his own, has been able to participate in that programme. Those homes will be built or acquired over the next few years. He is right to say that more work needs to be done, but I politely point out to him that enormous progress is being made in his own local council, Islington. The count a year ago was 59 individuals. The count for November, which we are releasing today, was 20—so a huge reduction in rough sleeping in his constituency, which I am sure he will praise.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of the Everyone In programme, which has taken 37,000 people off the streets. I also congratulate him on making sure that all public services honour their legal obligations under my Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 to ensure that homelessness is prevented. He will know that every single case of homelessness and rough sleeping is an individual case that has to be assessed. Will he therefore commit to a national roll-out of Housing First so that the network of support is built around those people who have been forced to sleep rough, not just with a home, but with the support they need?

[Robert Jenrick]

I praise my hon. Friend for the work that he has done. It is important that we do not attribute the whole of the success that we are seeing this year to the Everyone In initiative. As I said earlier, its roots lie much deeper than that, in the work that has been done over the last couple of years. His Homelessness Reduction Act played an important part in that. The statistics that we have published today show that the average person sleeping rough is a 26 year-old male, exactly the sort of individual that the Act set out to ensure was given support and that might not have been supported previously by local authorities. He is also right to praise Housing First. The pilots continue with £28 million of Government support, and the £430 million that we are investing in move-on accommodation is very much in the spirit of Housing First that we need to get individuals into a home and then give them wraparound care.

Uber: Supreme Court Ruling

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We talk a lot about reopening the economy, but the recovery of the economy is so important. That is why, although we have protected jobs, livelihoods and businesses, we must make sure that people coming back into work can flourish and have a course of self-development. That is why there are now a number of schemes available in Jobcentre Plus that are being rolled out to improve skills.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

My hon. Friend will know that the private transport market is a market, and clearly the position of the iconic black taxi cabs in London and the rest of the private hire market have to be considered appropriately. I warmly welcome the decision on safeguarding Uber drivers’ rights, but will he look at doing a wholesale review of the market to ensure that Uber is not advantaged in it in an unfair manner that discriminates against black taxi drivers and the rest of the private hire market?

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make sure that we continue to look at the number of private hire licences compared with black cab licences in London to ensure that there is no unfair advantage, but, ultimately, there is a market there, as he rightly says.

Building Safety

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady is wrong; as a matter of fact, we moved swiftly. We set up the Grenfell inquiry, which has heard those shocking allegations. We brought forward the Judith Hackitt review of building safety, which concluded that the regulatory regime needed to change. We have drafted and are now bringing forward the legislation to do that. I hope that the hon. Lady and Opposition Members will vote for the Fire Safety Bill and the Building Safety Bill when they come before this House soon, because that is the best way of creating the new regime, holding developers to account and making sure that local fire and rescue services and councils have the powers they need to take action against unsafe buildings.

I, too have been shocked by the allegations I have heard at the inquiry, which is why, as an interim step, before we hear the judge’s recommendations, I have announced that we are going to create a new national regulator of construction products and that I am going to review the testing procedures for construction products, which seem to be woefully inadequate.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the representations our Select Committee, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, has made, and to other colleagues. People who live in high-rise buildings will be breathing a sigh of relief after his announcements today, and I thank him for those. For the people who live in medium-rise blocks, we need to reserve judgment, in order to make sure we examine the details of his announcements. May I ask him specifically about the applications for the fund he has previously been running? There are some 1,100 incomplete applications, many of which require survey work to be undertaken. There is an issue as to whether the industry has the capacity to do that and whether that work will actually demonstrate what is needed. More importantly, the cost of those surveys has to be borne by someone. So what is he doing to ensure that those surveys are carried out and the applications to the fund are then made complete, so that work can continue on the buildings that are currently unsafe?

[Robert Jenrick]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support and advice in recent months, and that of all members of the Select Committee. We have received a large number of applications to the fund that, as he says, are incomplete. That reflects the fact that many building owners do not know as much as they should about the materials on their buildings, so a great deal of work needs to be done to assess them so that they can be funded, the work can be contracted and we can get workers on site to do the important building safety work as quickly as possible.

There is a particular problem, which my hon. Friend alights on, with respect to the number of fully trained, competent assessors who can go out and do that important first step. We are working with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to dramatically increase the number of fully trained assessors. That work has started and the numbers are already increasing. We are also working with the Treasury so that those individuals are not merely trained but can get the professional indemnity insurance that they need to do the job. If we can bring those two things together—that is happening quickly—we will be able to have a very significant increase in the number of individuals going out, doing the assessments, helping to give certainty to individuals and getting the works started.

Unsafe Cladding: Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee, who spoke about the inquiries that we have done—seemingly endlessly—over the past six and a half years. Three and a half years after the Grenfell tragedy, we still have leaseholders living in unsaleable, un-mortgageable, uninsurable, unsafe properties, and that is a disgrace that we have to put right. Progress on remediation has unfortunately been slow. It picked up last year, which is good news, but it has been slow and we still have buildings with unsafe cladding, which makes the homes almost impossible to sell, should someone so wish.

This is a complicated debate and a complicated issue, because we have ACM and non-ACM cladding and we have other fire safety issues, to which the Chairman of the Select Committee has referred. The Government, however, are responsible for two things that are important in this process: first, the testing regime, which is not fit for purpose and needs fundamental reform to ensure that cladding and other things that are put in buildings are safe; and secondly, the building regulations that control them.

We have a problem with building ownership, which is complex and unclear, with many buildings owned by offshore trusts and other organisations. We have to deal with those particular issues, but it is fundamental that leaseholders should not have to pay a penny piece towards the cost of remediating unsafe cladding.

The Government have rightly come forward with the Fire Safety Bill and the Building Safety Bill, and I sat through the pre-legislative scrutiny on the Building Safety Bill. The problem with the Building Safety Bill is that it will take a very long time before it comes into law and is actually put into practice. If the Government are against the amendments to the Fire Safety Bill tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), they are honour bound to come forward with alternative amendments that meet the fundamental principle that leaseholders should not pay.

The key is this: what do we do for the people who are in this position? Surveys cost an enormous amount of money. The industry cannot have the capacity at the moment to rectify all the damage that has been done. What is clear is that we need to ensure that the building owners and those responsible foot the bill. We have to end self-certification of buildings. It is unacceptable that building developers can just self-certify that their buildings are safe and are within the scope. We have to make sure that the Government extend the building safety fund into next year, increase the amount of money available, and make sure that the work is done—if necessary, taking over these buildings, remediating them, and then turning them into commonhold so that the leaseholders know that they have a safe building and are not paying a penny.

Holocaust Memorial Day 2021

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

We come together today to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day, which is held on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau more than 10 years ago, but it is forever seared on my memory. Six million men, women and children were murdered for no reason other than their faith. This was murder on an industrial scale, with thousands of people responsible for the holocaust. We can never forget what happened, but those who have long memories can forgive those people who perpetrated this crime against humanity.

I pay tribute to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and to the Holocaust Educational Trust, so ably led by Karen Pollock, which do so much good work to educate not only us but children and young people about the horrors of the holocaust. Sadly, the number of holocaust survivors is dwindling each year, but I pay tribute to those who go into schools, colleges and other meetings around the United Kingdom to bear personal testimony to what happened to them when they were growing up. The reality is that, without their personal testimony, it is hard to contemplate how 6 million people could have been murdered in such a way. Auschwitz-Birkenau was not the only camp. It was responsible for 1.4 million people being murdered, but we have to remember that the other death camps were equally responsible.

We must have the Holocaust memorial and education centre built alongside Parliament in Victoria Tower gardens as a permanent reminder of the horrors that can be inflicted by evil people, so that when people visit the cradle of democracy that is Parliament, they can also visit the memorial centre on a free-of-charge basis, and young people can be suitably educated. I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the holocaust memorial, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will be able to update the House on any further news and progress when he sums up the debate. Equally, we must always remember that this happened in our names, and we must ensure that we as Members who cannot sign the book of remembrance this year can sign the early-day motion that I have been privileged to sponsor. Early-day motion 1305 has attracted 91 signatures so far from hon. and right hon. Members from across the House, and I urge other colleagues to do the same. Let us all come together and be the light in the darkness.

Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s thanks to local council workers across the country. He talks about our pledge to support local councils and to ensure that they are fully funded for the work that they have done during covid, and we have made good on that promise. We have provided £7.2 billion already. Local councils to date have reported that they have spent £4 billion and are projecting that they will spend almost £6.2 billion to the end of the year, so we will have provided local councils with as much, if not more, funding than they have reported.

The hon. Gentleman refers to funding for local council tax losses and for sales fees and charges. Our schemes are extremely generous in both regards, providing 75p in the pound of losses for local councils to ensure that they can weather the particular storm that they have been through this year. He refers to council tax costs. Local councils are not under any obligation to increase council taxes. We only have to look back at the record of the last Labour Government to see what happens under Labour. Under Labour, council tax doubled. Under this Conservative Government, council tax is lower in real terms today than it was in 2010-11.

It is difficult to see how the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can pose as the guardians of taxpayer value. I appreciate that he is on what we might call a sticky wicket in this regard. We only have to look at his local Labour council in Croydon. It purchased a hotel above the asking price, which has now gone bankrupt. It created a housing company with a £200 million loan and it could not say whether it had built any houses. The cabinet has been described as acting like some kind of wrecking ball, except that the wrecking ball was directed at its own council. Or, indeed, we could look at Nottingham’s Labour council, which was described recently by its auditors as having “institutional blindness” to its financial mismanagement and ineptitude, which included creating an energy company called Robin Hood. That is a rather unusual definition of Robin Hood’s activities—instead of taking from the rich, it robbed off everyone.

The truth is that under Labour councils, it is the public who lose out. The public will pay the price in Croydon in lost jobs, poorer services and, ultimately, higher council taxes. We will continue to support local councils, the overwhelming majority of which, of all political persuasions, have done a sterling job this year, and we will ensure that they get the resources they need to continue that work into the new year.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

In these exceptional times, we have another single-year statement—or single-year funding—and I am sure my right hon. Friend will wish to return to multi-year funding as soon as practically possible. I welcome the £8 billion that has been given in additional funding this year alone to councils to support them in the pandemic and the commitment to more than £3 billion for next year. Obviously a number of areas, particularly in London and the south-east, have gone into tier 3, which does mean additional costs and forgoing income that local authorities will need to try to balance their books not only in this current financial year but going into the next year. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what additional support will be available to local leaders in the areas that are facing the highest restrictions under covid-19?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I share his desire to have a multi-year settlement for local government. Obviously, this year has proved a unique one, in which the kaleidoscope has been shaken in many respects and will take time to settle. I hope that when we come to do the settlement next year it will indeed be a multi-year one. I believe that that is the expectation of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but he will no doubt give confirmation in due course, as we see how 2021 turns out.

On local councils in tier 3, we are providing further funding for both councils themselves and their local business community, on a month-by-month basis, if they are in tier 2 or tier 3. The purpose of today’s settlement, in looking ahead to the likely covid expenditure that councils will face next year, is to ensure that both in respect of the month-by-month costs that councils are incurring, which have been about £500 million a month, and the losses they are incurring in sales, fees and charges, they at least have forward guidance to the middle point of the next calendar year. Of course we all hope that by Easter, and certainly by the summer, the position in the country and within councils will be dramatically different.