Orgreave

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

There is an important point here as this highlights why the Prime Minister is right to state that we as a Government need to work to ensure we deliver a country that works for everybody, so everyone in those communities— communities I worked in myself a decade or more ago—has the chance to succeed in life. We must always learn the lessons of the past. That is why the reforms over the last three decades and the reforms going forward are so important in making sure we continue to have a first-class police force in this country.

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

The police and crime commissioner in South Yorkshire, Dr Alan Billings, has made it absolutely clear that he does not want to begin the process of building a new future for South Yorkshire police by sweeping under the carpet the problems of the past. Will the Minister specifically say whether he and the Home Secretary have looked at the evidence of masonic links involved in the cover-up at Orgreave and whether they are the same masonic links that were evident in the cover-up at Hillsborough?

[Brandon Lewis]

I repeat what I said earlier this afternoon: the Home Secretary has considered a number of factors in the decision, including a wide range of documents and arguments put forward in the campaign submission. [Interruption.] Members on the Opposition Front Bench are saying this has already been said, but that might be because I am being asked the same question in effect time and again. No matter how many times I am asked, I will be clear to Opposition Members that the Home Secretary has looked at a wide range of issues in making her decision. [Interruption.] I say specifically on the hon. Gentleman’s point about the PCC, if Opposition Front Benchers will allow him to hear what I am saying, that Dr Alan Billings makes an important point about wanting to move forward with a fresh start for the new leadership of South Yorkshire police. My hon. Friends have made that point, and when I spoke to the PCC yesterday he was clear about his determination to have transparency and to have an archivist work through the archives to get as much as possible out into the public domain to help us move forward. The relationship with the public of South Yorkshire is important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Monday 6th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend rightly points out that the spending review put in £400 million of funding to deliver 8,000 new specialist affordable homes. As I said, the delay of a year is to work with the sector, and the review that we have commissioned jointly with the Department for Work and Pensions will be published shortly. We have made it clear from the beginning that we will ensure that the most vulnerable people are protected and supported through all the reforms.

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

If the Government continue with their rent and benefit changes it is likely that most supported housing will close, so it is welcome that they have instituted the review. In that review, will the Minister consider an issue that has been raised with the Communities and Local Government Committee as part of its inquiry into homelessness, which is whether, when people who are out of work and homeless go into supported housing, costs are covered through housing benefit? Under current arrangements, people who are in work can find themselves worse off than those who are out of work, so in the review will the Minister consider whether that problem can be rectified, along with the other issues?

[Brandon Lewis]

The review will consider all issues that affect the sector, and we are working with the sector on that—yes, absolutely, we will take that point on board.

Transport and Local Infrastructure

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Thursday 19th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate that I cannot comment on any particular planning application, but when it comes to support for the green belt, this Government have gone further than ever before to ensure that the green belt is properly protected. Ultimately, it is a matter for the local community, but as I said, when it comes to neighbourhood planning, she might like to have a look at what her party called votes on during the passage of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. She might like to update her knowledge on that.

To date, almost 200 neighbourhood plans have passed referendums, including a case in the last couple of weeks. We saw 18 go through in just one week—pretty much a record—with more going through week by week. Local people are now participants, not bystanders, in the planning process. That is helping to transform attitudes to development, and there is a much more positive approach to it. It turns out that when planning is done with people instead of being done to them, we create trust and see more homes given planning permission. We want to go further, and I am determined to provide the certainty and ease to neighbourhood planning that people want.

The Bill will make sure that planning conditions are imposed by planning authorities only where necessary. Let me be clear about the problem. As the Minister for Housing and Planning, I have had examples come to me of planning permissions with hundreds of conditions attached, the worst of which are those that stop any work happening at all until further details are agreed—so-called pre-commencement conditions. The worst I have heard of so far had over 800 of them.

I am aware of cases where half of the conditions attached require further agreement from the local authority. These are planning permissions that have been given the green light for building, but it can take months or even years to resolve these conditions. Many Members of all parties will have had residents affected or seen for themselves examples of sites for which permission has been granted, yet they have not been built on. It is most frustrating for a community to see that, and we need to put an end to it. We need to get people building on sites more quickly. The grief this causes is not restricted to companies who cannot get on with building because it affects communities themselves—the local communities that draw up their neighbourhood plans and go through the process of getting planning permission. They decide for themselves where they want new building to take place, and that localisation and simplification of the planning process is behind much of the successful new building since 2010.

When sites that have gained permission are drowned with pre-commencement conditions, disillusion with the entire planning system sets in. Frankly, it is toxic. We need to make sure that the power to decide where building will take place stays in the hands of local communities, which is why we need to refine the process. This is not—let me be very clear—about taking away any protections or checks; it is about stopping needless bureaucracy and time-wasting. Our intention is that many issues will be resolvable at the same time that the building is under way, making sure that any legitimate concerns are addressed without holding up production of the houses that we need.

Another key element of the Bill is the completion of our reforms to compulsory purchase. For the avoidance of confusion, this involves purchase at current, not future, use value. The Government do not propose changing the existing fundamental principle that compensation should be paid at market value in the absence of the scheme underlying the compulsory purchase. These proposals are intended to make the compulsory purchase process clearer, fairer and faster for all parties involved in it. The key point is that we are not changing anything like that.

If we want a much wider range of developers to play their part in building the homes and infrastructure we need, we must remove risk from the process of planning and land acquisition. Needless uncertainty does nothing to protect the countryside or to guarantee good design. What it does is restrict home building to the biggest players. The Bill, however, will give communities the tools that they need to diversify development, enabling both quantity and quality to be achieved in house building. It will also establish the independent National Infrastructure Commission on a statutory basis. I appreciate what was said about that by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne. The establishment of the commission is the next step in the Government’s plan to improve UK infrastructure, and will help us to deliver our manifesto pledge to invest more than £100 billion in our infrastructure networks during the current Parliament.

The second piece of legislation, the local growth and jobs Bill, will make an equally important contribution, not least by giving communities a direct financial stake in their future growth. Most important, the Bill will deliver on our commitment to allow 100% retention of business rates by councils, and, moreover, will allow them to reduce the business tax rate. It will also enable combined authority mayors to levy a supplement on business rate bills to fund new infrastructure projects. That will require the support of the business community through the relevant local enterprise partnership, but the potential for locally led infrastructure investment is clear.

All this takes place within the broader context of localism—of growth and devolution deals throughout our country, and of the decentralisation of billions of pounds of infrastructure funds. Local communities have never had a bigger opportunity to direct their future development. Indeed, who can blame certain Opposition Members for eyeing up those opportunities? With the political undead occupying their Front Benches, a new life in our newly empowered city halls has never looked so enticing. “In the name of God, go!” is what Oliver Cromwell told a previous Parliament. What I would say to Opposition Members such as the shadow Home Secretary who have itchy feet is “Yes, go for it: there has never been a better time to be in local government, with more influence and more power to do things for your local community than ever before.”

[Mr Betts]

May I return the Minister to a point that I raised earlier? May we have this on the record? Is the building of a million new homes during the current Parliament a Government commitment?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present for the first part of my speech, but I made it very clear that yes, we have an ambition to deliver a million homes during the current Parliament.

It falls to me to have the final word in today’s debate, but in years to come it will not fall to me, to the hon. Gentleman—the Chair of the Select Committee—or, indeed, to anyone else in the House. The final word on transport, infrastructure, housing and other matters that are vital to local growth will not be heard in the Chamber at all. Instead, thanks to this Conservative-led Government, key decisions will be made with communities that have been empowered to set their own course. They will be part of their own destiny. They will be designing, drafting and delivering on their own long-term economic plans, and I am proud to be part of the one nation Conservative Government who are setting them free to do so. That is why this is such an important Gracious Speech. It is delivering for our country, and I commend it to the House.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.)

Debate to be resumed on Monday 23 May.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point that goes to the heart of what we are seeking to do. With starter homes, shared ownership and other areas of Government policy, we are seeking to deliver homes for people who want to be part of the 86% who aspire to home ownership. Labour Members have often voted against and regularly outlined their opposition to that. We want to support those people; that is what the Bill is about.

Let me make it clear that the starter home requirement will not prevent councils from delivering other forms of affordable housing and home ownership products. For example, shared ownership and other home ownership products are part of the diverse and thriving housing market that we enjoy in this country. They help those who aspire to home ownership but who cannot afford even a discounted purchase. We have published a prospectus in the past couple of weeks that invites housing associations and other providers to bid for £4.7 billion of funding to deliver 135,000 shared ownership homes and £200 million to deliver 10,000 rent-to-buy homes as well.

The Bill focuses on starter homes, creating that new product and kick-starting delivery. We strongly believe that this is the most effective way to meet our manifesto commitment. Let me remind the House that we promised in our manifesto to deliver 200,000 new starter homes exclusively for first-time buyers under 40.

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

I am still a little confused about the position that local authorities will be put in if this amendment falls. They will, I think, still be entering into section 106 negotiations with a developer, part of which will involve a requirement to provide starter homes, but will they also have an ability to provide shared ownership properties and, presumably, affordable homes to rent as well? How will the balance and proportion of those homes be determined? Will that be a matter for local discretion?

[Brandon Lewis]

Yes, there is no change to the position that has always pertained. It will be for local authorities to negotiate with developers over what they do beyond the requirement for starter homes. We will have a requirement for 20% starter homes, but what the local authorities do beyond that will be a matter for them. My experience of talking to developers is that in some areas where they have negotiated lower levels of affordable housing, the local authorities will be able to deliver more under the starter homes requirement.

[Mr Betts]

So let me be clear: there will be requirement for 20% starter homes but if, as is the case in most of my constituency, the maximum requirement on sites for affordable housing is a total of 10%, does that mean that there would be nothing other than starter homes on those sites—that is, no other affordable housing?

[Brandon Lewis]

That will be a matter for the local authority to negotiate. I know from talking to developers in my own constituency, where we have had similar levels of affordable housing, that we will be able to have more affordable housing as a result of the starter homes requirement. Local authorities will be able to deliver more affordable housing through this programme. We will not allow anyone to prevent us from meeting our commitment to deliver those new homes for first-time buyers.

I also want to defend another of our manifesto commitments. Our manifesto made this very clear, and I will quote from it again as I did last week. It stated:

“We will fund the replacement of properties sold under the extended Right to Buy by requiring local authorities to manage their housing assets more efficiently, with the most expensive properties sold off and replaced as they fall vacant.”

We are discussing this again today because the Lords have yet again chosen to send our proposals back, in spite of the overwhelming majority in this House which overturned their last attempt to undermine our election mandate. I am shocked and disappointed by their action. I commend the noble Lord Lisvane, who has a wealth of knowledge and experience of procedural matters and who chose not to press his amendments any further, recognising the primacy of this, the elected House. I just wish I could say the same about other noble Lords. Lords amendments 47B and 47C, which have been offered in lieu of amendment 47, with which this House has disagreed, are more or less identical to earlier incarnations.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I hope it will not take us too long, that the other House will accept our points today and that the Opposition might come on board and vote with us to make sure we deliver affordable homes for people to buy—

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

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I will finish answering the last intervention, and then I will come to the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) is right. Whether through Twitter or email, I am hearing from a lot of people wanting to know when we will be able to deliver for the 86% of the population who want the chance to own a home of their own. It is absolutely right that we make affordable homes about affordable ownership as well as affordable rent.

[Mr Betts]

The Select Committee pushed the Minister on his impact and financial assessment of the full costs and implications of his policies around the sale of higher-value council homes; on whether those would deliver the replacement of housing association properties; and on all the remedial work on brownfield sites. When will that analysis be produced? I see that the other day the Public Accounts Committee made exactly the same criticism as the Select Committee: there is no information for us to go on.

[Brandon Lewis]

It was rather surprising to see the PAC reviewing a policy that has not gone through the House yet and which will deliver more home ownership to more people across the country, whether through the extension of right to buy, which will benefit 1.3 million people, or the intervention on starter homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, regardless of the comments from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). My hon. Friend highlights why the Bill is so important. We cannot and should not have to wait for 336 different planning authorities to undertake local need and viability assessments before action on starter homes can be taken. These amendments would hit the very people we are trying hardest to help. First-time buyers would see their chance of home ownership kicked firmly into the long grass yet again by these proposals. That might be what Labour wants, but it is not what we want.

[Mr Betts]

I am trying to understand what the Minister actually does want. I am trying to work out whether starter homes will be built in addition to other homes that would have been built, or instead of them. The Select Committee unanimously agreed the following words:

“Starter Homes should not be built at the expense of other forms of tenure; where the need exists, it is vital that homes for affordable rent are built to reflect local needs.”

Will the Minister tell us whether the Bill as he would like it to be worded would make starter homes the priority and effectively push out and displace affordable homes for rent as part of the section 106 agreements?

[Brandon Lewis]

I must point out to the Chairman of the Select Committee that we have been clear from the beginning that we need to see a shift in this country. We have had the farcical situation in which we in this place talk about affordable homes but refer only to homes that people can rent. We know that 86% of our population want to buy their own home, and it is therefore absolutely right that affordable homes should include those that are available to buy. We make no apologies for creating a new product and for turbocharging that new product to ensure that we get 200,000 such homes built over the course of this Parliament. We already have many hundreds of thousands of homes in the rental sector across this country, and we now need to give first-time buyers a chance. To be blunt, that is exactly what we put on the tin in the general election manifesto. We will deliver on our mandate to deliver starter homes.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am just going to complete this point. We will deliver on the mandate to deliver 200,000 starter homes, ensuring that we deliver homes for first-time buyers at a discount of at least 20% on the local market price.

We have also recognised in discussions in the other place that small sites in rural areas, known as rural exception sites, may require additional discretion on starter homes. Those details should be on the face of the Bill. We have listened to concerns that a compulsory requirement would disrupt the supply of rural exception sites. My noble Friend Baroness Williams of Trafford committed to bring back an amendment to give councils local discretion on rural exception sites. I am pleased to be able to honour that commitment in amendment (a) in lieu of amendments 9 and 10.

When I talk to developers and local authorities around sites around the country, they tell me that one benefit of starter homes is that more affordable housing may be delivered because developers will be allowed to deliver more. I have spoken to a number of developers who have said that the difference that starter homes would make is the ability to deliver 5% or even 10% more affordable housing in some developments in their areas.

There was a lot of discussion, both here and in the other place, about our plans to deliver the ground- breaking voluntary right-to-buy agreement through the sale of higher-value housing. It was another manifesto commitment passed from this House to the other place, and it is another change that we are discussing today. Amendments 37 and 184 would mean a considerable delay in receiving payments from local authorities, and therefore in delivering our manifesto commitment to extend the right to buy to housing association tenants. We remain convinced that the determination is the most appropriate way of setting out the information about the payment a local authority will be expected to make to the Secretary of State in respect of its higher-value housing. The key elements that will determine how much an authority will be expected to pay are set out on the face of the Bill. That includes the housing to be taken into account and the definition of vacancy.

The Government have listened carefully to the arguments made by hon. Members when the Bill was last debated and the contributions of all those in the other place. We have amended the Bill to ensure that local authorities are not disproportionately affected by the plans. The definition of higher value and the types of properties to be excluded will be set out in regulations and therefore subject to further parliamentary scrutiny.

I want to be clear with the House once again. In the other place, the Opposition were clear that they did not press the clauses enabling the voluntary right to buy to a vote and acknowledged our mandate for funding it. However, amendments 37 and 184 would seriously hamper our ability to implement it and so should be returned straightaway. The same applies to amendment 47, which is extremely restrictive and would prevent the Government from considering whether local authorities can actually deliver the required housing. We want to ensure that the Government can enter into agreements with local authorities about their local needs. By focusing solely on social housing, the amendment would prevent the agreement process from recognising that flexibility will be needed to respond to the country’s diverse housing needs—we have already heard from hon. Friends about the different needs in different places this afternoon—and that other types of housing may better meet local housing need.

I find it difficult to listen to those who accuse us of not being localist while tabling amendments that would mandate an old-fashioned, top-down approach. We want to ensure that we give local authorities with particular housing needs the opportunity to reach bespoke agreements on the delivery of different types of new homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

I am still as confused as I was at the beginning of the debate and at the Select Committee hearings. The Minister has just made an entirely reasonable point. I thoroughly agree that it should be for local authorities to determine the composition of homes to be built as part of section 106 agreements in their areas. How does that square with a policy of giving priority to starter homes and building 200,000 of them irrespective of the consequences for the building of other sorts of housing?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am actually talking about what will happen with the sale of higher-value properties, which is slightly different. We want to ensure that we give local authorities with particular housing needs the opportunity to reach bespoke agreements with the Government about the delivery of different types of new homes in their areas. If local authorities can demonstrate, for example, a clear need for new affordable homes, they should be able to make a case for such an agreement, subject to value-for-money considerations and evidence of a strong track record on housing delivery. That is important for areas that I have visited, such as Bath and Oxford. I met leaders in Cambridge and they want the flexibility to negotiate with Government and the Secretary of State to get the right deals for their area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

If the hon. Lady reads the Bill and the amendment, she will appreciate that we do not suggest that people over that income should not stay in their home, or that they should move to private rented accommodation; we are saying that as people earn more money, they should contribute a little more into the system. That is reasonable, and it ensures that we make the best use of those properties for the people who need them most. The package we have announced ensures a policy that protects work incentives. On that basis, I cannot support amendment 57, or amendment 58, which raises the income thresholds by the consumer prices index, and I hope that the House will agree.

[Mr Betts]

The Communities and Local Government Committee took evidence from housing associations when the Government were planning to introduce this scheme for them, and we heard clear evidence that it would cost them more to administer the scheme than they would get in returns from extra rent. Will the Government present a clear analysis of the administration costs of this scheme, particularly for people on variable incomes whose income, and therefore rent, goes up and down each week? We would need enormous amounts of administration to go with this scheme.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. This is about fairness across the system. People in London—and cities in other parts of the country—who are in the private rented sector and earn these salaries, or higher and lower, are wondering about those in housing associations who earn more than £40,000. Examples have already been given in the House of Secretaries of State on salaries of £125,000, or union leaders on salaries of more than £100,000, who lived in social rented housing. Tens of thousands of people are earning more than £40,000 or £50,000 a year and are benefiting from social rents, which is simply not fair to those who do not have those salaries or opportunities.

Select Committee on Communities and Local Government

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

We had witnesses from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so we did look across the board. We did not look specifically at extending the qualifying period for the right to buy, but we did look in some detail at supported housing. We thought that the discount should not be eligible in relation to the right to buy. The problem is that in some cases where a property cannot be sold, a portable discount can be given to another property, but if a person needs supported housing, then saying to them, “You can’t buy that house but you can have a portable discount to another supported housing unit somewhere else” does not really add up. We need clarification on that because we were very concerned about the prospect of losing supported housing in this way.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

First, I apologise to the Chairman and members of the Select Committee for not being here earlier; I have been serving on a Bill Committee. I hope they will appreciate that I whizzed down as soon as we finished the sitting.

I thank the Chairman and the entire team who worked on this report, and everybody who gave evidence, for their time and effort. It is a deep report that we will look at with interest. I am sure that members of the Committee and the Chairman himself will appreciate that there may be things that we do not entirely agree with; we have that debate from time to time. Through the voluntary agreement, our policies in the Housing and Planning Bill and our housing policies in general, we have been very clear that we support, and will continue to do all we can to support, the aspiration of home ownership, and the right to buy plays an important part in that. I welcome the time and effort that the Committee put into the report, and look forward to the debates on these issues in the period ahead.

[Mr Betts]

I would probably be disappointed if the Minister did agree with everything in the report. The Committee members were absolutely at one on this. We support the aspiration of home ownership—how could we not when we are homeowners ourselves? People would look at us askance if we came to a different view. We did not say that we were against the right to buy; rather, we raised a number of fundamental questions about how it could be funded. We would like the Minister to provide in response the information, the evidence and the facts and figures to back up the Government’s policy so that we can have a better view as to how it will work in practice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend highlights a good case. I know that, with his support, the previous Conservative-led Administration in Pendle was passionate about delivering on brownfield land. We want to see 90% of that land given planning permission. The best route is for the local community to take note of what the authority does and to let it know exactly what it thinks at the ballot box next time round.

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

I join you, Mr Speaker, in paying tribute to my friend and colleague, Harry Harpham, who will probably be the last coalminer elected to the House. As you rightly said, despite the seriousness of his illness, he was still here three weeks ago arguing passionately for the steelworkers and steel industry in Sheffield. It was a fitting culmination to years of dedicated service to the people of Sheffield. That service included the delivery of the decent homes programme, from which thousands of our tenants have benefited.

There are many brownfield sites in the Don Valley in Sheffield on which more than 1,000 homes could be built. The problem is that the land is subject to flooding. Sheffield City Council has identified £40 million towards a £60 million flood prevention programme. Will the Minister ask his officials to liaise with officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and city council officers to find a joined-up approach to ensuring that this land can be safeguarded and that those 1,000-plus homes can be built on the available brownfield land?

[Brandon Lewis]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman outlines a good example of where everybody could work together in the best interests of the community and to see more housing built, and I am happy to organise that meeting. I will make sure I have that conversation with him and the local authority.

Housing Benefit and Supported Housing

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I give way to the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Mr Betts]

The Minister has rightly recognised the importance of supported and specialist housing. He has now just indicated that the Government will somehow protect people in these circumstances. Can he give any indication of how that will be done and when these measures will be announced, given that housing associations are already having to plan for potential change in 2018 that could lead to the closure of existing accommodation and to new accommodation not being built?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman has effectively asked me to continue my speech, because I was just about to say, as I am sure he will appreciate, that the underlying principles are the bedrock of this policy formation. He, along with the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, urges the Government to note the concerns of supported housing providers, so let me reassure all Members of the House that we have of course been listening very carefully to those concerns, and we will continue to do so.

My ministerial colleagues and I have met representatives of the National Housing Federation and chief executives of housing associations that provide supported housing. We have listened very carefully to all these representations and noted everything that we have been told. We know that the costs of supported housing provision are higher than general needs housing and that providers rely on housing benefit funding for support elements such as wardens, security and the up-keep of communal facilities.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

No, I will not give way at this stage. I must try to deal with all the points that other Members have made.

Moreover, the hon. Lady’s approach would mean that some lifetime tenancies would be passed on to family members who were perfectly able to meet their own housing needs.

I can make it clear to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), that when someone with a secure tenancy is asked to move, the tenancy will be transferred with that person. We will give local authorities the freedom and flexibility to apply that to voluntary moves as well.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister confirm that if someone with a secure tenancy applies for a transfer, and a new tenancy is therefore created in a new property, the security of tenure will pass to the new property and the new tenancy?

[Brandon Lewis]

In the interests of speed, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the report of what I have just said, but yes, we will ensure that secure tenancies continue when tenants are asked to move, and councils will be able to consider applying them to voluntary moves as well.

I do not believe that the hon. Lady’s proposal represents a good use of social housing, and I trust that the House will agree. The Government amendments will result in a Bill that will bring fairness and efficiency to the housing market, and will further the dreams of aspirational home owners. I commend them to the House.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

We have had an extensive discussion both in Committee and tonight, and I look forward to rest of tonight’s debate, not least as it might allow us to see if the current shadow Front Bench is still the shadow Front Bench by the time we finish.

We have had extensive discussion on the Opposition amendments on starter homes, particularly in relation to clause 1, and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) has returned to that today, repeating points made in some of our previous debates. Since we discussed these clauses in Committee, our spending review has doubled our investment in affordable housing. The Prime Minister announced just yesterday that £1.2 billion of our starter homes funding will in the first instance support further brownfield site preparation, and that builds on the £36 million made available late last year.

Clause 1 sets out our position clearly—our manifesto commitment being delivered to build 200,000 starter homes. Clause 1 includes a clear definition to be applied nationally, and I hope the House will agree that we should not water it down through the proposed amendments. We strongly believe that new housing developments need to be supported by improvements in local infrastructure—this particularly covers amendment 32. Starter homes reforms do not change this. Starter home developments will still be required to have section 106 agreements to provide necessary site-specific infrastructure.

Turning to amendments 33, 34, 35, 37, 38 and 39, we need to be clear that these would remove the real benefits starter homes offer to young people—the very people we are looking to help. So I maintain that our model, as defined in clause 2, should stand to define our product clearly and support national delivery.

The hon. Member for City of Durham referred to amendment 39. I made it clear in Committee—Members can read what was said in Committee—that the regulations will specify that post-sale restrictions on sale and letting will exist and there is likely to be a period of five years before a starter home can be sold or let at open market value. I defend the right of any homeowner to have the same rights as any other homeowner to treat their home properly. If someone can never realise more than 80% of the value of their property, they lose the ability to move upwards in the housing market. This risks stagnation, rather than mobility. I want to incentivise young people and families to move onwards and upwards, and our model will enable families to do just that.

Turning to amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), I want it to be absolutely clear that the Government strongly support the need for a range of products to improve access to homeownership, and other products can perform a valuable function, too. It is for councils to consider whether these products should form part of their affordable housing ask on any given housing site. The clause will not prevent such developments from coming forward; nor will it prevent councils from securing other forms of affordable housing.

We are also introducing flexibilities in the Bill to encourage councils to build their own affordable housing. Let us be clear: 2014 saw the highest level of council housing starts for 23 years. However, we make no apology for prioritising support for low-cost home ownership and for making sure that we do what we can to get young people on to the housing ladder, rewarding their hard work and ambition.

I note the support for rent to buy, which is a product that we in the Government have supported as well. We will continue to focus on it, but at this stage I do not want to dilute our clear focus on delivering starter homes for first-time buyers. I accept that the need will vary across the country, which brings me to amendment 41. We need to be able to provide more starter homes across the country, and the outcome of our consultation will involve setting different requirements in different areas. However, I want to wait for the outcome of the consultation before I make any final decisions.

As I said in Committee, amendment 42 is unnecessary. Again, our consultation will seek views on the type of site that should be exempt from the duty, and I believe that it is right to await the outcome of that consultation. We will then publish a full range of exemptions. On Amendment 43, much of the information that the amendment proposes to have included is already reported. I want to reassure Members that we will consult on the proposed regulations relating to clause 5, and this will include details of the proposed monitoring reports.

On amendments 44 and 46, we are now in a position in which we can no longer afford to hold on to employment land indefinitely if it is not in productive use. I expect local authorities to continue to examine applications relating to exemption sites with the same rigour with which they examine other applications. I am therefore not persuaded that either of the amendments is required. If land is in active use, or if there is robust evidence that it could soon be in productive use for employment uses, a council will be free to consider it as part of the planning process.

Turning to amendment 45, I want to reassure Members that it is our firm intention that any compliance direction should be a backstop provision. We expect that provision to be used only rarely, but it will be an incentive to ensure that we do our bit to deliver these new starter homes for first-time buyers.

[Mr Betts]

On that point about direction, will the Minister tell me what freedom local authorities will have to assess housing need in their areas if they decide that, on balance, they need to provide more rented or shared ownership homes as part of a package relating to a section 106 agreement on a particular site?

[Brandon Lewis]

Obviously, local authorities can build more council houses. I would encourage them to use the headroom that they already have to build more social housing themselves, but they will continue to have the ability to negotiate with developers in relation to section 106, just as they do now.

On new clause 2, it is clearly important that we build new developments that can stand the test of time, just as our Victorian and other predecessors did before us. I do not believe that the new clause is necessary, however. We already have strong, clear policies on resilience, sustainability and design in the national planning policy framework, supported by building regulations. The new clause would impose additional and unnecessary burdens. I say this in the light of the fact that in more than 96% of the cases in which the Environment Agency has raised objections, those objections have been fully heeded in the final planning decisions. It is absolutely right that local authorities should take good account of the advice given by the agency on developments in flood risk areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

This has been a worthwhile and an interesting debate. The comments of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) about the amendments were a bit rich, given that we had made changes and allowed extra time in Committee for her and her colleagues, and bearing in mind that we tabled the amendments back in December. Her comments on Opposition amendments repeated conversations that we had in Committee, so I do not intend to rehearse those and detain the House further on issues that we have already discussed.

On Opposition new clause 57, I made it clear in Committee that we need a radical shift in the way the housing market supports young first-time buyers so that we do not condemn a whole generation to uncertainty and insecurity. That is why we want to see 200,000 new starter homes built over this Parliament exclusively for young first-time buyers at a minimum of a 20% discount on open market value to help them into low cost home ownership.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) for his contribution. I understand the points that he made and I will take them on board and review them along with my ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), who I know will be willing to meet him and interested bodies to discuss how we can take matters forward in an appropriate way.

I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). He is a respected former Minister in my Department with a wealth of experience and expertise. I believe that his concerns are addressed by provisions in existing legislation, but I am very willing to meet him and interested bodies, such as the CLA, to discuss making sure that the provisions in place are adequate.

I also welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on ensuring that communities have a strong voice in planning. My right hon. Friend focused, in particular, on infrastructure. He is quite right to draw attention to the cost of development, so I thank him for doing so. It is right that new development should be supported by an appropriate level of infrastructure and that developers should provide support to put that in place. That is what the negotiations on section 106 and the community infrastructure levy are for. We would expect any significant infrastructure that would be needed to support a proposed new development to be a material consideration for the planning decision, and therefore covered in detail in planning reports for a local authority. We would therefore expect the costs associated with putting the necessary infrastructure in place to be covered.

I believe that the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs about neighbourhood plans are a clear indication of the strength of feeling that people have about ensuring that their voices are heard. I very much appreciate the intention of the amendment, as the Government place great importance on neighbourhood plans. However, I hope that I can convince him and other colleagues that these amendments are not necessary at this stage.

Neighbourhood plans give communities the power to shape the development of their area. When a neighbourhood plan is made, it becomes part of the development plan and attains the same weight in law as a local plan, as it forms the basis for decisions on planning applications. The law is clear: decisions should be made in accordance with the development plan, with material considerations taken into account. The national planning policy framework is also very clear. It states:

“Where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted.”

That is well understood by local planning authorities.

I want to be clear that a “made” neighbourhood plan is a clear indication of a community’s vision for its local area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) has outlined, and it should be respected as such. I would expect local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate to give due weight to neighbourhood plans as they progress towards adoption. The NPPF itself is clear that the more advanced the plan, the greater the weight that may be given to it. Communities have their say throughout the local and neighbourhood plan-making process. Indeed, neighbourhood have the ultimate say with their referendum. Their views must be considered when decisions are taken on applications. The Bill speeds up and simplifies that neighbourhood planning process, which underlined the importance we place on it.

The system is therefore already geared towards ensuring that communities’ views are taken into account, and local authorities must respect that. If communities are concerned that their plans are not being respected as they should be, the Secretary of State has powers to intervene. I can confirm that the Secretary of State will continue to consider intervention to recover certain appeals where there is a made or submitted neighbourhood plan. I can further confirm that I intend shortly to lay a revised ministerial statement extending and confirming the current recovery criterion for a further six months. During that period, we will continue to review the measures. I hope that my hon. Friends who have spoken tonight and others who are interested will work with us and feed into that period.

The improvements that we are proposing in the Bill will strengthen and revitalise the planning system. They are a real shot in the arm, which will get new homes built with fewer quarrels and less delay. The changes that we are making will assist those who run into difficulties, for example when negotiating section 106 agreements, giving people clarity and security that homes given planning permission will actually be built, and built in good time.

We are continuing to set the bar as high as possible on how public land will be used. As the Prime Minister said on Monday, we will ensure that we get Britain building.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Brandon Lewis]

Not at this stage.

These amendment will allow us to capitalise on our progress and ensure that public sector land and the planning system is fit for the future. I hope that colleagues will reflect on these comments and not feel the need to press their amendments to a vote. I commend our new clauses to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 29 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 30

Resolution of disputes about planning obligations

‘(1) After section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations) insert—

“106ZA   Resolution of disputes about planning obligations

Schedule 9A (resolution of disputes about planning obligations) has effect.”

(2) After Schedule 9 to that Act insert, as Schedule 9A, the Schedule set out in Schedule (Resolution of disputes about planning obligations: Schedule to be inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) to this Act.

(3) In section 106 of that Act, in subsection (1), for “and sections 106A to 106C” substitute “, sections 106A to 106C and Schedule 9A”. —(Brandon Lewis.)

This new clause inserts a new section 106ZA in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which gives effect to new Schedule 9A to that Act. Schedule 9A is set out in new Schedule NS4. The new Clause also makes a consequential amendment.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 31

Planning obligations and affordable housing

‘(1) After section 106ZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by section (Resolution of disputes about planning obligations) above) insert—

“106ZB    Enforceability of planning obligations regarding affordable housing

(1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may impose restrictions or conditions on the enforceability of planning obligations entered into with regard to the provision of—

(a) affordable housing, or

(b) prescribed descriptions of affordable housing.

(2) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;

(b) may impose different restrictions or conditions (or none) depending on the size, scale or nature of the site or the proposed development to which any planning obligations would relate.

Paragraph (b) is without prejudice to the generality of section 333(2A).

(3) In this section “affordable housing” means new dwellings in England that—

(a) are to be made available for people whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market, or

(b) are starter homes within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (see section 2 of that Act).

(4) “New dwelling” here means a building or part of a building that—

(a) has been constructed for use as a dwelling and has not previously been occupied, or

(b) has been adapted for use as a dwelling and has not been occupied since its adaptation.

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to modify the definition of “affordable housing”.”

(2) In section 333 of that Act (regulations and orders), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3ZA) No regulations may be made under section 106ZB unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”” —(Brandon Lewis.)

The section inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by this new clause confers power to make affirmative-resolution regulations about obligations entered into under section 106 of that Act with regard to affordable housing, and defines “affordable housing” so as to include starter homes (see Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Bill).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.



New Clause 43

Processing of planning applications by alternative providers

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a planning application that falls to be determined by a specified local planning authority in England to be processed, if the applicant so chooses, not by that authority but by a designated person.

(2) The regulations must provide that the option to have a planning application processed by a designated person—

(a) does not affect a local planning authority’s responsibility for determining planning applications, and

(b) applies only until a specified date.

(3) The regulations may provide that—

(a) they apply only to planning applications for development of a specified description;

(b) designations of persons by the Secretary of State (see subsection (7)) may be made so as to apply only in relation to planning applications for development of a specified description.

(4) The regulations may—

(a) apply or disapply, in relation to England, any enactment about planning;

(b) modify the effect of any such enactment in relation to England.

(5) Sections (Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers): general) to (Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers): information), which set out matters that may be included in regulations under this section, do not limit the power in section 142(5) (to make supplementary provision etc).

(6) For the purposes of this group of sections (that is, this section and sections (Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers): general) to (Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers): information)), processing a planning application means taking any action in relation to the application (other than determining it) of a kind that—

(a) might otherwise be taken by or for the responsible planning authority, and

(b) is specified in the regulations.

(7) In this group of sections “designated person” means a person—

(a) who is designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with the regulations, and

(b) whose designation has not been withdrawn in accordance with the regulations.

The Secretary of State may designate a local planning authority.

(8) In this group of sections—

“local planning authority” has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

“planning application” means an application for planning permission under Part 3 of that Act;

“responsible planning authority”, in relation to a planning application, means the local planning authority responsible for determining the application;

“specified” means specified in regulations under this section.” —(Brandon Lewis.)

This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power, by regulations, to introduce pilot schemes for competition in the processing (but not the determining) of applications for planning permission.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 44

Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers): general

‘(1) Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers) may make provision—

(a) requiring a designated person to process a planning application, except in specified circumstances, if chosen to do so by an applicant;

(b) allowing a responsible planning authority to take over the processing of a planning application from a designated person in specified circumstances.

(2) The regulations may make provision about—

(a) eligibility to act as a designated person;

(b) the capacity of a local planning authority to act as a designated person;

(c) actions to be taken or procedures to be followed—

(i) by persons making planning applications,

(ii) by designated persons, or

(iii) by responsible planning authorities,

and periods within which the actions or procedures are to be taken or followed;

(d) matters to be considered by designated persons or responsible planning authorities;

(e) performance standards for designated persons;

(f) the investigation of complaints or concerns about designated persons;

(g) the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, any advice provided by a designated person to a person making a planning application is binding—

(i) on the responsible planning authority, or

(ii) on designated persons other than the one providing the advice;

(h) cases where a person ceases to be a designated person or where a designated person is unable to continue processing a planning application.

(3) The provision that may be made under subsection (2)(c) includes provision requiring a designated person to provide assistance to the responsible planning authority in connection with—

(a) any appeal against the authority’s determination of the application;

(b) any application to the court made in relation to that determination.

(4) The provision that may be made under subsection (2)(f) includes—

(a) provision about the payment of compensation;

(b) provision for a designated person to be required to indemnify the responsible authority for any compensation that the authority is required to pay;

(c) provision applying anything in Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1974 (local government administration) with or without modifications.

(5) The regulations may confer powers on the Mayor of London or the Secretary of State in cases where a direction is given under section 2A or 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“call-in” directions).”—(Brandon Lewis.)

This new clause provides that regulations under NC43 may provide for various matters including the actions and procedures to be followed during the pilot schemes, the eligibility of persons to act as designated persons, the setting of performance standards, and how conflicts of interest and the investigation of complaints are dealt with.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 45

Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers): fees and payments

‘(1) Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers) may make provision about—

(a) the setting, publication and charging of fees by designated persons or responsible planning authorities;

(b) the refunding of fees, by designated persons or responsible planning authorities, in specified circumstances.

(2) The provision that may be made under subsection (1)(a) includes provision giving power to the Secretary of State to prevent the charging of fees that he or she considers excessive.

(3) The provision that may be made under subsection (1)(b) includes provision requiring a designated person or a responsible planning authority to refund to an applicant some or all of a fee paid by the applicant to a designated person where the person or the authority fails to do a particular thing within a specified period.

(4) The regulations may authorise the making of payments by the Secretary of State to local planning authorities or designated persons.” —(Brandon Lewis.)

This new clause provides that regulations under NC43 may include provision for the setting, publishing and charging of fees by designated persons and planning authorities in pilot areas, and for the refunding of fees; it also includes power for the Secretary of State to intervene in relation to excessive fees.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 46

Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers): information

‘(1) Regulations under section (Processing of planning applications by alternative providers) may make provision—

(a) requiring responsible planning authorities to disclose information to designated persons;

(b) requiring designated persons to disclose information to responsible planning authorities or to other designated persons;

(c) restricting the uses to which information disclosed by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) may be put;

(d) restricting further disclosure of such information.

(2) The regulations may make provision for designated persons or responsible planning authorities to be required to provide information to the Secretary of State.”—(Brandon Lewis.)

This new clause provides that regulations under NC43 may provide for information-sharing (about, for example, the planning history for land to which an application relates), may restrict uses to which shared information may be put, and may require information to be provided to the Secretary of State.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 57

Planning obligations: local first-time buyers

‘(1) After section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations) insert—

“106ZA Planning obligations in respect of local first-time buyers

(1) When granting planning permission under 70(1)(a), or permission in principle under 70(1A)(a), for the construction of new dwellings for sale, the local planning authority may require that a proportion of the dwellings are marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers for a specified period.

(2) The “specified period” in subsection (1) must start no earlier than six months before the new dwellings have achieved, or are likely to, practical completion.

(3) “First-time buyer” in subsection (1) has the meaning given by section 57AA(2) of the Finance Act 2003.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) define the “specified period” in subsection (1),

(b) define “local” in subsection (1), and

(c) the definition “local” may vary according to specified circumstances.

(5) The regulations in subsection (4) so far as they apply to local planning authorities in Greater London will not apply to these authorities unless the Secretary of State has consulted and received the consent of the Greater London Authority.”” —(Dr Blackman-Woods.)

This new clause would empower local planning authorities to impose a planning obligation when giving planning permission for the construction of new housing for sale requiring that a proportion of the housing is marketed exclusively to local first time buyers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

Housing

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Smith]

rose—

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Brandon Lewis]

I was going to make progress but I will give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.

[Mr Betts]

I thank the Minister for giving way. To go back to supercharging, some of us were pleased when the Government made a commitment to build 1 million new homes in this Parliament. Is that still Government policy and a commitment, or has it been downgraded to an aspiration?

[Brandon Lewis]

To be fair to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, he quoted me spot on in his opening remarks. It is absolutely still our ambition to build 1 million homes. We need to be ambitious about building new homes, but this is not solely about the number of new homes. We are determined not just to halt but to reverse the slide in home ownership that the Labour party oversaw. With so many people being kept off the housing ladder for so long, we are determined to deliver on our promises quickly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I am happy to respond. We will relax or remove local authority restrictions to shared ownership to make it easier for people to find the right home for their families. Brownfield land has an important role in meeting housing need, and we are committed to ensuring that 90% of suitable brownfield sites have planning permission for housing by 2020.

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

7. What assessment he has made of trends in the number of homes built for social rent since 2010.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

Since 2010, we have delivered 270,000 affordable homes, including nearly 200,000 homes for rent. The majority of rented homes, delivered through the affordable homes programme, are for affordable rent, delivering more homes for every pound of Government investment. The spending review committed some £1.7 billion to deliver 100,000 affordable rented homes.

[Mr Betts]

Let me draw the Minister’s attention to the question I asked, which was about social rented housing, not affordable rented housing. Will he confirm that during the last Parliament, the only social rented houses built had been funded before the 2010 general election, and that there is no funding at all for social rented housing in the comprehensive spending review for this Parliament? Does the Minister accept that the combination of the policies of Right to Buy for housing association tenants and the sell-off of high-value council properties means fewer social rented homes being available for people and longer waits on the waiting list for those people who want one?

[Brandon Lewis]

Actually, there was a 70% increase in social housing waiting lists under the last Labour Administration, and thanks to the flexibilities we have created, it has fallen. We also saw more social council housing built in the last Parliament than in the entire 13 years of Labour Government before that, and there is still over £2 billion of headroom in the housing revenue account for local authorities to go further and build more. I encourage them to do so.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

Co-operative properties are among the categories for which housing associations can exercise their discretion not to sell their property to tenants. In the agreement, such tenants would potentially be able to use the new ability to have a portable discount that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined earlier.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) rightly talked about the importance of infrastructure in making sure that we are delivering to communities the infrastructure they need for the future. I appreciate and agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and others about the importance of achieving people’s aspirations through starter homes and of making sure that we have locally led system delivering with local plans.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) outlined the important work being done by the London Land Commission, which I co-chair with the Mayor of London, to make sure that we are delivering land across London. He rightly pointed out that it is important that we continue to deliver public land, right across the country, to reach and exceed the target of 150,000 homes from public sector land that the Prime Minister has rightly set for this Parliament.

We in this Government have a strong record in protecting those in the rental sector. We have made £6.7 million available to local authorities to identify and successfully prosecute rogue landlords and lettings agencies, and 40,000 properties have been inspected. It is nice to have the Opposition’s endorsement for the measures in the Bill to drive rogue landlords out of business. It is a shame, therefore, that the shadow Secretary of State’s reasons for opposing the Bill betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what the people of this country are crying out for—but that, I suspect, is why we got the result we did in the general election.

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Brandon Lewis]

No, I will not give way at the moment.

Eighty-six per cent. of people say that if they had a free choice they would choose to buy their own home. This Government were elected because the people of this country saw the evidence that we would give them that choice. This Bill underwrites that determination. The shadow Secretary of State says that it will not help people who struggle to own their home, but he is wrong. Let me remind the House of our record so far. Since the spring of 2010, over 230,000 people have been helped to buy a home using Government-backed schemes. I am sure that he will, at some stage, want to thank us for the fact that in his constituency housing starts are up by 57% since 2010. Help-to-buy schemes have already helped nearly 120,000 people to buy their own home. The help-to-buy equity loan has now been extended until 2020, helping a further 194,000 households. Forty-one thousand new shared ownership homes have been delivered. Now, because of this Bill, our ambition of 200,000 starter homes will become a reality.

This Bill will enshrine equality in the social housing sector. It will give the Government the ability to deliver on the side of aspirational, hard-working families. It will provide more people with opportunities to own their own home—that is more people with the financial security that a secure foundation of home ownership provides. I was pleased to hear many Labour Members outline their support in principle for people’s right to buy, and I hope they can convince their Front Benchers to take that forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I thank him for endorsing the fact that we are determined to do what we can to support people who aspire to own their own homes. We will move forward with delivering that right to all social tenants. The Government are committed to ensuring that people can achieve their aspiration of home ownership. We support people’s desire to own their own home, and we will work with them. Under the current programme, there are rural exemption sites.

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

Given that the Government have completely failed to replace the council homes sold under the right to buy, and given the Minister’s proposals to force the sale of housing association homes, are the Government committed to replacing housing association homes that are sold and council homes that will be sold to fund the compensation to housing associations? If not, does he accept that his policy will lead to a reduction in the number of houses available for social renting?

[Brandon Lewis]

Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

National policy makes it clear that planning should promote the retention of community facilities, including meeting places such as village halls, but I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and look at the details of a case on which I know she has campaigned hard with her local residents.

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

T6. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government, if they remain in power after the election, intend to carry on with the same level of year-on-year cuts in the next Parliament as they have applied in this Parliament, and if so, will he or the Minister of State seriously consider whether in that situation it will be possible for all councils to remain financially viable and continue to deliver their statutory services?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. When I visited him not too long ago, he showed me Labour plans for places to have the ability to grow outwards. The review says that some places illustrate these issues to a greater or lesser extent, and that

“not all green belt land is of high environmental or amenity value”.

I suspect my hon. Friend’s residents would disagree with that. I know he has campaigned hard on this issue. It is vital to ensure that we continue these strong green-belt protections. Ultimately, these matters must be locally decided by local people for their local area.

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

The Minister will be aware that paragraphs 17 and 111 of the national planning policy framework contain a commitment to “brownfield first”. When the Select Committee did its recent inquiry into the operation of the NPPF, it received more complaints about one issue than any other—concerns about inappropriate speculative applications, not just in the green belt but in green fields in general. Will he agree to look very carefully at the Select Committee’s recommendations to speed up the process of local plan adoption and to ensure that those local plans have a higher percentage of brownfield within them? There is real concern about this issue on both sides of the Chamber.

[Brandon Lewis]

The short answer is yes. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point: it is important to protect both green-belt and greenfield land. Some interesting cases have arisen, particularly one in the last couple of weeks, in which green-wedge land was protected by inspectors. However, it is also important for local authorities to deliver local plans, and it would be even better to see some more neighbourhood plans.

communities and local government committee

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

The specific regulations on permitted development rights were not about offices, but about shops and banks. However, we did receive some evidence on that. Concerns have been identified, particularly in London, about the loss of business and office space to residential use.

I want to make two points about town centres. First, local authorities—I am a great localist—did not get the message that retailing was changing fundamentally with online shopping, and did not change their local plans quickly enough to respond to that, which is a big issue. Secondly, the Committee strongly made the point that the response to such rapid changes has to be properly planned for by making changes to local plans. If, on a pepper-potted basis, we allow a change of use from shops and banks to residential, we might well end up with less ability to reconfigure town centres or to change areas wholesale from retail to other uses. That was one of our big concerns. There should be a plan-led approach to changes in retailing, not pepper-potting by permitted development.

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

I want to add to what all Members have quite rightly said in congratulating the Select Committee and its Chairman on putting together a solid and sound report. They have my and the Government’s thanks for the efforts that they have clearly put into taking evidence and working on the report.

I particularly note the importance given to neighbourhood plans, which has been mentioned. I agree that they are hugely important, which is why we are speeding up the process and putting another £22 million into them. It is good that, as has been outlined, the general view is that the NPPF is working. It has now delivered 240,000 new planning permissions in the past year.

I assure the Committee that the Government and the Planning Inspectorate will look at the report’s 29 recommendations as part of our desire to improve the planning system—we can speed it up, while ensuring that we further enforce localism and local decision making, which is the key to positive development in future—but does the hon. Gentleman agree that local plans are hugely important, and that local authorities should be getting on with delivering local plans as well as neighbourhood plans to make sure that they have real local power over planning? Like me, he will be interested to see how local government reacts to and takes on board the eight recommendations specifically directed at local government. I again thank him for the report.

[Mr Betts]

Last time the Government agreed to 30 of our recommendations. It will be difficult to match that this time as we have given them only 29 recommendations, but I am sure that they will be grateful to receive one less.

It is absolutely right that the Government should take away the report and consider it. We are saying that the NPPF has been a success in general, but we hope that the Government will recognise that there are some problems, particularly about issues—the development of local plans, the five-year supply of housing land and the relationship between neighbourhood and local plans—that need to be addressed to improve the system that they set up. I hope that the Government will respond positively, and we look forward to discussing their response to our recommendations when it is made.

bill presented

Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

The Deputy Prime Minister, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Nicky Morgan, Mr Oliver Letwin, Greg Clark, Mr Sam Gyimah, Jo Swinson and Tom Brake, presented a Bill to make time-limited provision for vacancies among the Lords Spiritual to be filled by bishops who are women.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 5 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 143) with explanatory notes (Bill 143-EN).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for standing up to make sure that the process is followed correctly. Obviously, the planning process is quasi-judicial and planning authorities must go through the full process. I will make sure that the chief planning officer keeps an eye on what is happening and ensures that the process is followed, and I will keep an eye on the case myself.

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

As I understand it, we will get an announcement later this week about the local government financial settlement for next year, which could involve a 10% reduction in local authority spending. That is as big a cut in one year as central Government Departments have faced throughout the whole of this Parliament. Will the Secretary of State, in the interests of transparency, give an assurance that he will come to this House and make an oral statement, rather than hide behind a written statement as he did last year?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

Yes, I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.

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

T4. Last week, in a statement on child exploitation in Rotherham, the Home Secretary said that the Secretary of State was “minded” to commission an independent investigation of what had happened there. Will the Secretary of State update the House on his thinking, and tell us whether it would be within the remit of those conducting such an investigation to look into the accountability of officers who work for Rotherham now or have done so in the past, and their responsibility for anything that happens in this regard?

Local Government Procurement

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Bayley. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and congratulate him on securing the debate. He is quite right: we absolutely welcome the Select Committee’s report and endorse its view on the need for councils to improve the way in which they procure goods and services. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) made a good point about the number of Members who have joined us for this debate this afternoon. I appreciate that there is also an important debate in the Chamber, but this is an important matter, and it is good to have the chance to air some issues, discuss good practice, which I will touch on, and highlight how important procurement is and what local government should be doing to focus on it.

I will resist the urge to go too far down the road that the hon. Lady tempted me down at the end of her speech, when she mentioned social values and jobs. As meritorious as those issues are, and as important as it is that councils are aware of them, going in that direction would tempt us towards having some sort of central governance over what those values should be, which is the very opposite of the localism that I believe in. It has to be for local authorities to decide what the right values are for them.

We agree with the Communities and Local Government Committee that councils, with the support of the Local Government Association, should absolutely take the lead and have the responsibility for delivering on the procurement agenda. Councils are uniquely placed—geographically as well as structurally—to understand the needs of their residents and communities and to be locally accountable to them for their actions and decisions.

The hon. Lady gave some figures, and just to put things in context, this is a hugely important area, not least because last year the local government sector spent £57 billion on procuring goods and services. As she said, that accounts for roughly a quarter of all public sector procurement. Councils are often one of the largest spenders and one of the largest employers in their local economy. By being more astute and imaginative in how they use that spending power, they can do much more to ensure that they achieve greater value for money and help their local economies to grow. When we talk about savings, most sensible business people, hearing that local government spending is £57 billion, would come to the conclusion straight away that just a little improvement in procurement could bring a small percentage saving, which would be a very large amount of money.

I accept that the Government have an important role to play, at least in incentivising service transformation and encouraging innovation. As set out in our evidence and response, we have already introduced a range of key public sector procurement reforms that will open up procurement opportunities to both small and medium-sized enterprises. As the hon. Member for Sheffield South East said, the FSB has targeted those opportunities. Sometime last year, I was on a platform with the LGA and the FSB talking about the added local benefit that can be brought particularly by small businesses but also, as he rightly says, by voluntary and community organisations—the third sector as a whole.

The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill was introduced into the House on 25 June. It will help to deliver our commitment to build a stronger economy by supporting small businesses. The Bill contains a number of measures intended to improve public sector procurement, which will, subject to consultation, ensure that procurers run an efficient process, accept electronic invoices, do not charge for bid information and do proper pre-market engagement.

The Bill will also make it easier for small businesses to raise concerns about public procurement practices and cut down on red tape by ensuring that regulations affecting businesses are reviewed frequently and remain effective. It will deter employers from breaking the national minimum wage legislation by creating a power to allow the penalty for underpayment to be imposed on employers on a per-worker basis, and it will stop the abuse of zero-hours contracts—the hon. Member for City of Durham mentioned them, and I shall come back to this point in a moment—by preventing the inclusion of exclusivity clauses, which are used to prevent individuals from working for other employers, even if the current employer is offering no work.

Other key reforms, which will be introduced later this year, include the abolition of the pre-qualification questionnaires for contracts below the EU threshold—I note the comment by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, and I will come back to that in a moment—and the requirement for public bodies, including local authorities, to use Contracts Finder, which is a national procurement portal.

We are developing a standard pre-qualification questionnaire—for contracts that are above the EU threshold, I stress—and councils will be encouraged to use that. The aim is to ensure that businesses no longer have to complete the countless different versions that currently exist. That will make it easier for small businesses and voluntary organisations to bid for contracts and increase collaboration across authorities.

I noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments and the Select Committee’s points on pre-qualification questionnaires. I can understand why local authorities like them, but if we want to get more small businesses involved, I think the risk of having more tendering is a good risk and one that could actually be to the benefit of local authorities. If they want to reduce that risk, they can do that by getting their tender documentation right in the first place.

[Mr Betts]

Clearly, this is one of the few areas of specific disagreement. We picked up from small businesses that if suddenly they found that they were putting a tender in along with 20 other organisations, 19 of them would be wasting their time. As long as it is a standardised and simple pre-qualification questionnaire to thin out the number that will tender, it could be greatly to the advantage of small businesses in particular and reduce their costs overall.

[Brandon Lewis]

Of course, if councils are giving an up-front line on their procurement process, that gives companies more time to plan and, particularly for small businesses, allows them to decide whether it is right for them to tender and whether they want to do so. However, most small businesses also tender for business in the private sector, where they will be used to being involved in competitive tendering for work that they want and going up against anything from one to a countless number of competitors. That is how the market works. From my experience of working in and talking to businesses—small, medium and large, but small businesses in particular—I know that another piece of paper from an authority that they have to fill in before they even start to tender is just another layer of bureaucracy, red tape and paper that they do not want.

We have been providing support for councils by encouraging them to use Contracts Finder now rather than waiting for its use to become mandatory. We have pointed out the benefits that it can bring for both procurers and suppliers, because it opens up procurement opportunities and makes them transparent. We have been encouraging councils to start using the current simplified pre-qualification questionnaire for contracts that are, I stress again, over the EU threshold. The hon. Member for City of Durham made a good point about the myths that exist about what can be done in a whole range of areas that local authorities deal with. I will come back to that.

We have been encouraging the improvement of commissioning skills among local authority employees—a very important issue—by offering access to the commissioning academy. We have been sharing expertise by offering access to courses and learning tools provided by the Crown Commercial Service. We are providing £16.5 million of funding over two years to change behaviour and perception in respect of tackling fraud in local authorities, including in local government procurement, regardless of how small it may be. We should bear in mind the fact that overall fraud and error in local government costs more than £2 billion, but that does not necessarily involve procurement. However, it is still an important matter, and we need to ensure that we are on top of it. We are providing guidance on social value considerations and the pre-procurement market engagement process.

Following the success of last year’s transformation challenge award, which was hugely oversubscribed, we have launched another one for 2014 to 2016, and £320 million will be available over that period. The aim of the award is to encourage and reward local authorities that are able significantly to improve their services so that they better meet the needs of local residents. That can include making improvements to and transforming how services are commissioned and procured through greater sharing and efficiency, such as integrated commissioning in shared financial planning, testing new tools and pooling budgets. There can also be joint procurement of things such as ICT, and services can be extended to nearby local authorities. In addition, we have been working with the Local Government Association on its draft national procurement strategy and supporting the Chief Fire Officers Association’s national procurement group in developing a national procurement strategy.

However, the central Government cannot deliver better local procurement ourselves, nor should we try to. That can only lead to more red tape, bureaucracy and top-down control, which no one in local government or the small business sector wants. What we can do and should aim to do is to create the right conditions for it by eliminating unnecessary red tape and removing barriers to local innovation. As the Select Committee recognised, it is then for local authorities themselves to take the initiative.

We do see examples of good practice throughout the country. We have time, so I will place on record some good examples that we know exist. Halton borough council has abolished pre-qualification questionnaires for all its contracts below the EU threshold. In Norfolk, my home county, the county council no longer uses them for contracts under £100,000, and a number of other local councils do not use them for low-value contracts. Oxford city council had the idea of running a programme of workshops specifically targeted at small and medium-sized enterprises. That is about helping them on how to tender for business. Herefordshire council has a programme of opportunities and events for current and potential suppliers, which it developed as a way of informing, and maintaining strong relationships with the local supply market.

A number of local authorities have developed local procurement hubs, such as Supply Hertfordshire, Procurement Lincolnshire and the East Sussex procurement hub. Those hubs cover large areas. There are also hubs that cover even larger areas, such as The Chest, which covers much of the north-west. Across the country, there are also a number of multi-authority purchasing and public buying organisations, such as the Yorkshire Purchasing Organisation, which has already helped North Yorkshire county council make savings of about a third of a million pounds by buying social care equipment to help people with daily living. That was done through the organisation’s assistive technology contract. The Central Buying Consortium can also help councils deliver savings. For example, the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames, which I visited today, achieved 26% total cost savings on a £32 million project to expand its primary schools by using a public buying organisation. That was a substantial saving for that community.

However, despite the examples of good practice, too many local authorities still have a long way to go. They need to go further in saving money and doing more for less through better procurement. Councils need to adopt a strategic approach to their procurement and use their collective buying power to best effect. They need to ensure that their procurement officers have the necessary skills and that they take advantage of the learning opportunities and tools that are available to them. They also need to find ways of sharing best practice around local government. That is a role not just for councils, working with their partners, but for the Local Government Association.

All too often small firms are locked out of local government contracts, or at least perceive and believe that they are, by councils adopting over-complicated procurement processes. Councils need to be sure that they are doing everything they can to remove those barriers. I always say to councillors, and I will say it again on the record today, that if officers are quoting to them regulations, guidance or EU bureaucracy that is getting in the way, they need to ensure that that is correct. Let us bust those myths. Let us ensure that councillors are challenging the officers and getting to see what is in the way to make sure that it is real rather than perceived. That will mean that we can start to open things up even more.

There are many simple things that councils can do to improve their procurement practices. For example, in addition to abolishing unnecessary requirements to complete a pre-qualification questionnaire for contracts below the EU threshold and publishing all their tenders and contracts online, they should build up a supplier network and engage with suppliers.

That is related to one of the myths that I would like to bust and be clear about. EU procurement rules apply only once a council has made a decision to procure goods and services. Early engagement with suppliers can mean that innovation and co-design are built in from the outset, leading to better services. Creating and publishing a future pipeline of commercial activity so that suppliers can plan ahead is another positive step that councils can take. They can publish details of contracts that have been awarded so that contractors can not only see what has happened before, in order to get an idea of what will be expected of them in the future, but view subcontracting opportunities.

Councils can ensure that they have robust procedures in place to tackle fraud. We need to ensure that we keep fraud low and aim to drive it to zero. An important point, which relates to one that the hon. Member for City of Durham made, is that they can stop gold-plating on equalities. Equalities impact assessments are not, and never have been, a legal requirement. Officers can use their judgment to pay due regard to equality without resorting to time-consuming, often bureaucratic tick-box exercises at the end of a decision-making process—the very thing that can put people off. Councils can break contracts up into smaller lots to open up procurement by bringing in more competition on price and attracting some of the smaller firms that prefer to go for smaller contracts.

Better procurement, the sharing of senior management teams, service transformation, asset rationalisation and the driving of local economic growth all contribute to the overall improvement in local government productivity. Some councils—I have given just a few examples, but there are many more—have already made considerable progress in improving their procurement processes, making it much easier for businesses to bid effectively for contracts. However, I am not yet convinced that all local authorities have made the necessary changes, although I am confident, based on its approach to the Select Committee report, that the Local Government Association and its national procurement strategy can play an important part in helping driving forward the changes. Nationally, we need to keep talking about it in order to motivate and encourage local authorities, but it is vital to remember that it is for local authorities to deliver.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should look at spending power, which is what the Local Government Association prefers to use, because it outlines the amount of money and the way local councils have influence and control. It is the entire spend that a local authority has; it does not just single out one small part of its funding. That is an important change in how local government finance has worked, as we are now moving to a system in which more and more of the money is in the entire control of local authorities with their own autonomy.

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

rose—

[Brandon Lewis]

I will give way to the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee before making some progress.

[Mr Betts]

I draw the Minister’s attention to what he told the Committee on 27 January. He said that the system is changing from one based on allocation according to need, which now will be reflected merely in the base business line rate in 2013-14. Basically, the Government will distribute grant according to local authorities’ ability to raise their own resources. Is that not a fundamental change?

[Brandon Lewis]

It is a total change away from the begging bowl system to a reward-and-incentive-based system for local authorities.

Community Budgets

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Brandon Lewis]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I have had experience of this. One really good example of data sharing involves Cheshire fire authority, which has put a lot of time and effort into breaking down barriers, getting to the root of what really can be done, and getting on with it. It is useful in a debate such as this for Members from all parties to spread the word—when people read Hansard as bedtime reading, or over the weekend—so that people appreciate that such things can be done if they want to do them. The Act needs to be read properly, so that it is not misunderstood or misinterpreted by anybody in an authority.

Little things, simple things, can make a difference. In Hertfordshire, a group of people consisting of representatives from the fire authority, the county council, the police and social services works together in the same room. That has broken down barriers and has got through to people, enabling them to understand things better and allowing for much better data sharing.

Whether barriers are real or imagined, we have committed to improve data sharing where it will improve services for residents. We are setting up a centre of excellence for information sharing and exploring options for legislative changes.

The pilots also told us that their attempts to work with partners were sometimes hindered, as Members have outlined, by uncertainty about future funding. As a result of these concerns, the Treasury is working with Departments to give local public services the same long-term indicative budgets as Departments, from the next spending review. One key characteristic of the whole-place community budget pilots—why they succeeded where past attempts did not succeed as well, or failed—was the close co-operation between central and local government. As the Select Committee’s report makes clear and as the hon. Member for Corby said, the pilot areas highlighted the importance of Whitehall secondees working alongside them, helping to change the way central and local government work together, and helping to bridge understanding of how both sides work.

[Mr Betts]

I welcomed the Treasury’s looking at whether it can give local authorities more of an indication on medium-term budgeting than they currently have. As part of that process, will it also be the Treasury’s job to look at how far, during the spending review period, Departments will be expected to contribute a certain part of their budget to the community budget process?

[Brandon Lewis]

The Committee Chairman tempts me to prejudge what the Chancellor may decide, but he will understand if I resist him for now. The Treasury is looking at the issue and understands the importance and benefits of long-term work and giving budgets in the way that I have outlined.

[Brandon Lewis]

I will not hold the hon. Gentleman to his promise about that being his last intervention; I would not want to curtail any further insights. He does not make an unreasonable point. I will mention the important issue of social care and where it may lead in a moment; it is linked in respect of the better care fund, for example. However, as I said in opening, it is true that if we can have a better service up front, people might not necessarily need emergency and hospital care. That would be better for them and mean lower costs for their areas. The Committee Chairman mentioned the potential for being a midwife; if my Department in its current format ends up being the midwife to public services working together in future, I will be proud of what we have achieved in our time in office.

The pilot areas highlighted the importance of the secondees. The Government are committed to the approach, which is why we created the public service transformation network, which has 30 officials and counting seconded from around Whitehall and local government. They are now working with the nine new areas, but they are not the be-all and end-all. It is a rolling programme. The secondees are helping the areas to learn from the pilots and quickly create a better outcome for service users; it is an evolution of what the pilots delivered.

Some areas are picking up themes similar to the ones the pilots picked up. Each area has its own focus, depending on its circumstances and the needs of its local residents: localism in its true sense. In Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset, the focus is on integrating and improving services for elderly residents and for those with mental health or learning problems. Better support for those seeking employment or training is the priority for partners in Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark, and for the six boroughs within the West London Alliance, which are working superbly well together to deliver there.

I have already mentioned Surrey’s plans to integrate local emergency services, as Northamptonshire has done, but it also wants young people in their area to receive better training and education. In Swindon, partners want to create safer communities and, in particular, give better and more co-ordinated support to victims of domestic abuse. Residents in Bath and north-east Somerset could benefit directly, with more money in their pocket, thanks to the work of local partners and the Department of Energy and Climate Change to improve energy efficiency in local homes.

I have barely begun to scratch the surface of the work going on in those places. I urge colleagues to take a close look at those projects when the network’s website is launched in just a few weeks’ time. People might see something that they think should be happening in their own constituency; that touches on the point raised by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) on sharing data and best practice. Better services are not the preserve of people living in pilot areas or in one of the nine areas that are working intensively with the network. Those areas are there to share best practice. We want to learn from them and to see other areas move, too.

I agree completely with members of the Select Committee that local areas should not be held back or discouraged from proceeding with service transformation. Much of that can be done without any assistance from central Government, because it simply requires local partners to sit down, forget their differences and focus on the outcomes for residents. Partners in Staffordshire, Leeds city region, Blackpool, Tyneside, Cornwall and Suffolk are getting on with plans to improve services for residents, and others can do the same. Much can be learned from the excellent work in Suffolk, where the county council is working with district councils to share management and services. If there are barriers, gather evidence and let us know. We have already shown that we are ready and willing to aid the process by changing the way government works.

I want specifically to address the idea that the work of the community budget pilots is somehow unconnected with other important areas of policy or that big Departments are not engaged. We must not get caught in the trap of thinking of community budgets and service transformation as an initiative cut off from other Government projects, work and reforms. The principle of neighbourhood and whole-place community budgets is simple; it is about partnership working across public services, local and central, to create not just cost-effective services but services designed around people rather than structures and organisations. The same principle is at the heart of the troubled families programme, the integration of health and social care budgets, the pooled local growth fund and many more areas of work; it is not a top-down exercise. We are working closely with local partners and others on the design of the expanded programme.

The troubled families programme, for example, is being extended, as the Select Committee noted, to an additional 400,000 families over five years, with £200 million already committed for the first year in 2015-16. The hon. Member for Corby asked about the assessment of the programme, which is subject to a three-year independent evaluation. Initial findings are due later this year.

On health, it was partly thanks to the hard work and the evidence provided by the four whole-place community budget pilots announced by the Government that we could develop the £3.8 billion better care fund in the spending round. Health and social care services are already working together to ensure that our elderly residents receive the support they need to stay at home and out of hospital. We have also established a network of 14 integrated care pioneers that will, like the community budget pilots before them, work closely with central Government to develop the solutions that others can then adopt. Locally led public service transformation also has the potential to promote economic growth.

Although I understand that the Select Committee and the Essex pilot are disappointed that not all of Essex’s whole-place proposals were adopted—the Essex pilot was particularly commented on—it is possible that such areas can do far more within existing Government policy. Essex has done great work in establishing an employment and skills board that involves local employers and skills providers, and the board’s labour market intelligence has already influenced millions of pounds of capital investment by further education colleges.

A number of the nine new places are reviewing how skills and employment support is provided, and the network is working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Jobcentre Plus, the Skills Funding Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions. Again, the support is not just for the select few.

[Mr Betts]

The Minister is right to say that the Select Committee drew particular attention to the Essex problem—or the BIS problem, as it should probably be called. He has given a long list of things that Essex has been able to do, but the people from the Essex pilot were clearly concerned when they came to give evidence to the Committee. Will he take the Committee into his confidence and indicate precisely what BIS did when those points were put to it? How did BIS respond? What commitments has BIS given to change?

[Brandon Lewis]

There is still a lot that Essex can do within the abilities and powers that it has been given. We arranged a meeting with BIS directly, which I think has now happened, but I will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s message and ask BIS to respond directly to him on where it is at.

The Government have invited local areas to make public service reform proposals as part of the local growth deals, which are currently being negotiated with the cross-Government local growth team. We have also provided an extra £10 million a year for Jobcentre Plus, working in partnership with local authorities, to help young people find apprenticeships and traineeships. I hope that we can all agree that the focus on better outcomes, which is at the heart of the community budget pilots, is evident across all Departments and all parts of the public sector.

Members asked, “What exactly is there?” The network has 30 staff and a budget of £2 million. The network is accountable to Sir Bob Kerslake, but it reports to Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury.

The Chairman of the Select Committee made a point about localism. The community budget pilots, the transformation network and some of the great work being done by councils across the country to bring public services together and to get on with changing how we deliver services for the better—this is what really matters—proves that the power the Government have devolved to local communities and local councils goes way beyond the central process that we had in the past. That is a revolutionary change that, hopefully, local government will grasp and take forward. It would be wrong for us in central Government ever to pretend that we have taken a vow of silence on what we think of certain decisions or on pointing out good examples of best practice for providing residents with the great services that all taxpayers deserve.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Kettering is an excellent example of a good Conservative council managing its finances properly for the benefit of local residents, keeping down the cost of living by keeping council tax frozen and providing excellent front-line services, as good councils all over the country are doing.

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

In the June spending round, the Chancellor stated that in future years local government spending would drop not by the 10% to 15% that the Local Government Association said, but by 2.3%. The Prime Minister has repeated that figure. I wrote to him asking how it was calculated, but got a response from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that did not do that. Will the Minister now explain where that 2.3% figure is in the document and how it is calculated? If it is not in here now, will he write to me, placing a copy in the Library, showing how it has been calculated?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am happy to write to the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee with the figures. He will find that the gap between some of the points the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made and the real figures is explained by the fact that we are interested in how much local authorities have to spend on their residents, not just what they spend on bureaucracy and red tape, through the Government grant.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords]

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

What is important—I think this is what the hon. Gentleman was trying to say in a roundabout way—is to do the right thing, not what might look like the right thing but may not be. Local authorities are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, but I will continue my remarks so that he fully understands the point about how people can get to information.

It is absolutely right that the Government are driving forward the transparency agenda so that auditors have access to the information they want. That is why it is important that if people ask questions, the auditor may gather even more documentation to investigate the issues. That goes further than the Freedom of Information Act, which would require the auditor to provide information it holds but not lead it to seek additional material.

Last week, the Government published their response to the consultation on the transparency code. It set out their intention to make regulations requiring local authorities to publish specified pieces of information, including contract details exceeding £5,000. Local authorities also monitor the delivery of their contracts and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Government consider that a better approach would be for contracts to include provisions that require contractors to assist local authorities in meeting their Freedom of Information Act obligations—thereby satisfying the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. That decision was taken following the Justice Committee’s post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act, which recommended that greater transparency through contracts would provide a more practical approach than extending that Act to companies directly.

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

I have heard what the Minister has said about transparency of contracts, but is he saying that if a local authority goes about formulating a contract in the right way, the public—it is they who are important—could be entitled to as much information about the spending of their money through a contracting process as they would be if the service was delivered by a local authority directly?

[Brandon Lewis]

It is not for me to prejudge a contract that a local authority might agree to, but it is true that people can access the Freedom of Information Act through the local authority, and the auditor can go further in its inquiries to ensure it has all the documents it needs.

[Mr Betts]

That has not answered my question—I was not asking what local authorities should do. If a local authority went about this correctly and formulated a contract correctly, could the public have as much information on the spending of their money through a contracting process as they could if the service were delivered directly by the local authority?

[Brandon Lewis]

In principle, yes, but it is not for me to prejudge how a local authority would contract. If it chose to contract in that way, of course that would be a matter for it. It would be entirely possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said, the Freedom of Information Act applies to local authorities, but we are not extending it to cover private companies. I am happy categorically to make the point, as I did in Committee, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he looks in Hansard, that we are not going to extend the provision to private companies; it is the local authority that will be accountable. He will have to take that as outlined.

We will issue a revised code of practice encouraging public authorities to include and enforce provisions in contracts to ensure that openness and accountability are maintained by encouraging the release of a wider range of information about contract delivery. This approach will be monitored by the Government and the Information Commissioner. If contractors or public authorities do not comply with this guidance, the Government will consider what other mechanisms might be necessary, including the possible extension of the Freedom of Information Act to service providers.

[Mr Betts]

On a point of clarification, will the guidance apply to subcontractors as well as contractors? In practice, many contracts are effectively delivered by the subcontractors as well as the main contractors.

Business Rates

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

Increasing corporation tax will affect all businesses, for the very reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) has already outlined. The hon. Gentleman is kind of missing the point.

[Mr Betts]

I presume that the Minister is not ruling out business rates not increasing by the retail prices index next year. If so, will he tell the House where the Government might find the money to achieve a lower increase in business rates? Will it come from local councils, the Exchequer or somewhere else?

Funding for Local Authorities

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I will take an intervention in a little while, if I have time.

We heard a number of interventions during the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) mentioned what small councils could do. It is worth stressing—I am happy to put this on the record again—that there are small district councils across the country, and not just in rural areas, running budgets of roughly £10 million or even less. They must look at their situations very closely and consider whether their current format, with their own chief executives, management and silo services, is sustainable. They should consider partnering with other authorities, as around 40 authorities do already, and having shared chief executives and management.

The partnerships between High Peak borough council and Staffordshire Moorlands district council is a fantastic example. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) talked about Mid-Suffolk district council, and I must say that Suffolk, as a county generally, offers a really good exemplar of the work that can be done. Suffolk Coastal and Waveney district councils are coming together with a shared chief executive. Babergh and Mid-Suffolk district councils and St Edmundsbury borough council and Forest Heath district council are all showing how to come together to make real savings.

The chief executive of a council deal such as Staffordshire Moorlands and High Peak would explain that those kinds of savings can amount to 18% or 20%. When they are running a budget of around £10 million, that is a substantial saving. I argue that small local authorities should be doing that not only because of financial pressure, but because the money could be spent on front-line services, rather than on administration and management.

Several Members mentioned school bus services. I agree that councils should be working very hard to protect front-line services that are important to rural and urban communities. In my constituency of Great Yarmouth, the Labour-led county council has looked at cutting rural bus services, which would mean children having to walk up to 3 miles to get to school, and on major roads with no pathways. That is absolutely unacceptable. It should be looking at the plans that were in place under the previous Conservative administration in order to find the savings it needs and bring in the revenue it needs without slashing those important services. Councils should look at that carefully.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) carefully outlined the situation with regard to funding, but we must remember that in the past year councils increased their reserves to £19 billion, the highest level on record. It is important that we also look at options. This Government are not just talking about that; with community budgets we are delivering a transformation in the way services are provided across the public sector, which independent reports show could save this country around £20 billion. Across the country there are community budget pilots, of all political colours, doing some phenomenal work, and that has now been rolled out to a further nine areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) touched on some of the issues relating to education, transport and buses, which I have already outlined. The Chair of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), raised some issues about funding and mentioned the 56 councils. I have touched on some of the things that they could be looking at. I am not entirely surprised, although I am still disappointed, that he seems to be making the case for more taxes on people who I think want the cost of living to go down. That is why it is important that we freeze council tax and do not encourage more taxes locally.

[Mr Betts]

The Minister just mentioned reserves. Does he not understand that it is not an issue of rural or urban, or Conservative or Labour? It is about councils looking at the black hole that is coming, as the forecasts show, and which the Chancellor has identified in the spending review, and making prudent decisions on how to spread the money available over a number of years in order to try to do their best to protect services. If Ministers just keep rubbishing that as councils holding on to reserves for their own sake, they do a disservice to hard-pressed local authorities.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am afraid that I entirely disagree. Having led a local council that, before my time, had seen council tax increases of 18% and 16%—they were regularly in the double figures—and in a country where council tax doubled under the Labour Government, I believe that hard-working people think that council tax should be kept low and that councils should be looking at how they spend their money, not just building up reserves and then pleading poverty. If they believe that they are short of money, they should use the reserves they have to invest for income in the future and make savings, as many good authorities are doing.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), in a very strong speech, touched on the new homes bonus, as did a number of Members. It is an issue that we are looking at. There is a consultation at the moment and the Government will of course respond to it. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) referred to fire authorities, but he should bear in mind that the response to the Knight review is coming. Fire authorities were protected in order to make some of the efficiencies that they should have been making but in too many cases were not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) outlined in his strong contribution—other Members also commented on this—how he thought the funding gap should be reduced. I say to my hon. Friend that the gap between rural and urban with regard to spending per head has reduced by 4%.

That leads me to an important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) in his passionate speech. I thought I was doing well with his flattery and compliments, for which I am grateful. He was clearly being sincere until he mentioned the word “svelte”; I knew then that my ego was not being brushed in the way I hoped. My hon. Friend made a clear point about the analysis. While he was away after suffering an unfortunate injury, I met SPARSE and I would be happy to go through this again. We managed to clarify the difference between how it and the Government have calculated the figures. A rural area is different for the Government, because an area such as my county of Norfolk, which would usually be classed as rural, has within it urban areas such as Norwich, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn, and that gives us a slightly different calculation. I would be happy to go through the figures with my hon. Friend when we get to them in a few months’ time.

“Councillors on the Frontline”

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Brandon Lewis]

Yes, I understand that, having been a council leader myself, and having gone through various budgets, including being able to freeze council tax back in 2005 to keep council tax low, as the Government have done consistently since coming into office in 2010. I fully understand that. I say to councils that if they want to spend and if they have reserves they are building up—councils have built up £3 billion of extra reserves in the past year alone, taking the amount to a record high of £19 billion—it is not credible for the public to expect them to be able to build up such reserves while pleading poverty. If they want to look at using that and they need to look at the capital side of their reserves, they should look at putting that into capital expenditure that will help them save revenue further down the line. That can be done, and good councils are doing that across the country and are even able to provide cuts in council tax, as we saw from some great Conservative councils in this year alone.

I recognise that, in general, providing this framework is not, in terms of the Localism Act, the end of the story. I am as keen as anyone here to see more people from more backgrounds become involved in one way or another, bringing a wider range of skills and experiences and spreading the load. However, I am clear that it is also for councils and local political parties to engage positively in their areas, to provide strong role models, to go out into their communities and to be part of them, and to demonstrate the importance of the work they do by using their new freedoms to show that they can make things better, generate an enthusiasm to become involved and then harness that enthusiasm.

That is not about setting centrally driven quotas or lists. It is not about directing councils on the support that they must provide or on how they should do things. It is not about centralising or directing councils over the allowances they pay, nor is it about us taking a vow of silence on any of those things. It is not about imposing additional levels of performance management, when ultimately the ballot box will determine.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes touched on elections every two years, and he has made his views well known around unitary councils. Where we do have examples of two-yearly elections, the turnout is not particularly higher, and it is certainly no higher than when we have all-out four-yearly elections. Again, that is something that councils have the freedom to look at, take a view on, and decide what is right for them in their communities.

Nor is this about imposing any central burdens on national or, in particular, local taxpayers without the opportunity for them to consider whether that is how they want their money to be spent. What it is about is harnessing the enthusiasm on the ground to get involved and make a community better. For example, we already have more than 650 communities applying to have a neighbourhood area designated. That is the first step in a formal process for neighbourhood planning. More are joining each week and, in that way, exercising a real local say in how they want their areas to develop.

It is about working with communities and encouraging them to see the new opportunities open to them, even if the community does not necessarily want to get involved to start with, because it is something new and they are not used to it. There is nothing to stop councillors from encouraging them to make their views known and to start to build interest, or from mentoring them and representing them in the council and other service delivery organisations.

There are many examples of councillors working in communities to help their residents take back control. This is about those councillors acting as role models for and in their communities. It is about explaining clearly the roles of councillors and the function of local government in people’s lives. We all have an important part to play in that, as do the media, as a couple of Members touched on earlier. It is about councils truly valuing the work of their councillors, supporting and empowering them and providing them with the necessary freedoms, tools and budgets as appropriate.

It is about local and national political parties engaging with people, considering how they can best encourage people and candidates to come forward, and looking at their own rules and processes.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister address the issue that I raised at the end of my contribution about the lobbying Bill? It was not in the report because it was not an issue then. We want to know whether the proposals will restrict councils and councillors in their role. There is an exemption in schedule 1 for MPs so that we are not caught by the provisions, but there is not one for councillors, which gives the impression that councillors will be caught by it.

[Brandon Lewis]

I was aware of the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I was going to say that we do not believe that the Bill will have a detrimental effect on councillors. His comment is on the record and I will ensure that my colleagues in the Cabinet Office look at that. We will come back to the Chair of the Select Committee with any feedback on the specific comment, but we do not believe that it will have such an effect. As I say, that is on the record, and I will make sure that he gets some feedback.

Getting people more involved is also about councils and councillors considering the skills and support that they need—Opposition Members have touched on that today, as I did a few minutes ago—and drawing on the programmes that organisations such as the Local Government Association run so well, seeking out appropriate training or mentoring opportunities and looking to identify and replicate best practice. All of us, but particularly council leaders, group leaders and lead members, have a role in encouraging members to get involved in training.

I saw this when I was a council leader. There are councils that will organise a training session, and some councillors will turn up, wanting to be involved and to learn, but often the ones who most need the support and help, whether they realise that or not, are the ones who do not turn up to those meetings. We must have the courage to admit that that happens, do something about it and encourage those people to be part of those opportunities. That will benefit both them and their communities.

Getting people more involved is also, as hon. Members have rightly said, about how councils manage the times of their meetings best to suit the pattern of councillors that they have and the communities that they represent. That is about using the flexibility that they do have.

Getting people more involved is about councils and councillors working with local employers to demonstrate the skills that they bring to their representative role: negotiating skills, analytical presentation and debating skills, a determination to succeed, the ability to work with others and, where successful, a clear track record of delivery. Those are real skills—Opposition Members made this point—that any workplace and any employer should be keen to recognise and proud to encompass in their work force.

Above all, getting people more involved is about all of us, from central Government through the whole local government sector to individuals—“councillors on the front line”, to use the Select Committee’s phrase, and those they represent—working together to make that happen.

I would not pretend, and I do not begin even to suggest, that any of this is easy. We in central Government must push even harder, I acknowledge, to do our bit, to reduce as far as possible centrally imposed burdens on local government and to continue to turn the tide from the centrally created system that, as hon. Friends commented, we have seen for so long, to locally driven action. An enabling framework must be provided to allow that, and real change, to happen.

I welcome the debate that we have had this afternoon. The way in which the role of councillors is to develop in the future, embodying the development, delivery and oversight of efficient and effective public services, and the developing role in communities and neighbourhoods, are a matter for ongoing discussion and development, and I am pleased to be involved at this stage and very happy to continue to be involved in the debate. It will be an important debate for the future of local government in our country and the councillors who work so hard for their communities within it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As Members will recall, in this year’s assessment we recognised sparsity and went further by making available just over £9 million more to cover it. I will continue to talk to the rural authorities group over the summer to ensure another clear and fair settlement when we get to 2014.

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

Has the Minister thought about what his reaction will be when a council announces that it cannot fulfil its statutory obligations with the resources available to it?

[Brandon Lewis]

Local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that they balance their budgets, and they have been doing that. It is particularly interesting and impressive that since 2010 public satisfaction with local authorities has increased. It is also important that small district councils in particular, which are working with silo expensive management teams, look at sharing management to make sure that they spend the money on front-line services looking after residents, and not on bureaucracy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Monday 3rd June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

Unfortunately, we have to bear in mind the background to this, with spending on council tax benefit doubling under Labour and currently costing taxpayers £4 billion a year—around £180 per household. Welfare reform is vital to tackle the deficit left by the last Labour Government. Under the last Administration, more was being spent on this than on defence, education and health combined. That simply has to stop. The reforms we have put in place to localise council tax support give local authorities the power and the incentive to deliver local growth and get people back into work.

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

Does the Minister accept that many of the families who have to pay extra council tax are the very same families who have to pay the bedroom tax? Many of those families will simply not be able to meet the extra demands placed on them. Given the limits faced by local authorities on the amount of the discretionary housing benefit they can award, does the Minister accept that local authorities and housing associations will eventually be placed in the inevitable position of having to take enforcement action against families whose only crime is that they simply cannot afford to pay?

[Brandon Lewis]

Actually, I do not accept that. With the greatest respect to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, I think that the important point of these changes is that they incentivise local authorities to see economic growth and get more people into work. It is against the local authorities’ interests to penalise people. They should be wanting people to get into work to drive economic growth. This change gives them the incentive to do that, and through the Localism Act 2011we have given them the freedom to do just that.

Local Government Finance (England)

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I will make a little progress and then take more interventions.

As I said, areas such as Breckland, Mendip and South Lakeland will feel the benefit of this grant, and that brings me to my next point. This system now works in favour of local councils. Through the Localism Act 2011 and the financial reforms in this settlement, which mean that 70% of local authority income will now be raised locally, councils have more power than ever before. However, they need to understand the implications, act in their residents’ best interests and work hard on their behalf, as I know many authorities across this country do. That could be done by redesigning council tax benefit to cut fraud, promote local enterprise and get people back into work, or by redesigning services to make them more efficient and sustainable. Town halls should not be constructing Maginot line defences against the deficit.

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

The figure the Minister used of councils now raising 70% of the money they spend is obviously going around the Government, because the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned it in the Liaison Committee the other day. Is not the real reason for that percentage increase simply that the amount of money going from central Government to local government has fallen, and therefore the council tax money, which has remained basically the same in most authorities, has risen as a percentage? That is the only reason why that percentage has increased.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman needs to look at the new business rates retention scheme, which I shall discuss in a moment, as it gives authorities the chance really to be in control of their destiny, and to drive economic growth for their communities and, as a part of their communities, for the country. I thank him for giving me the chance to highlight that we need to get control of the horrendous deficit left by the previous Government.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will come to that specific point, as the hon. Lady raised a similar one.

Where councils want to join forces to pool their business rates, sharing the rewards and risks with their neighbours and thinking together strategically about how they should invest the money—a topic on which we have spent some time this afternoon—they will be able to do so. I will come back to that in response to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).

The proposals for business rates retention will give all local authorities unfettered access to tax increment financing. There will be no constraints. From April 2013 local authorities will be able to get on with implementation. We are also making £150 million available to fund a limited number of new development deals—projects in the core cities.

A number of Members commented at length on issues related to pooling. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was the first to raise this in his remarks. I record my thanks to him for the fantastic work he did in bringing the Bill to the point at which I inherited it. He gave a great speech outlining some of the thoughts underlying the Bill and answering a great number of questions from Members to help everybody in the House have a fuller and better understanding of where the Bill is coming from and therefore what it aims to deliver.

Business rates retention changes the ground rules for local government and moves power back to where it should be. To pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), it effectively puts local money back with local people in local communities—local money for and by, to coin a phrase, local communities.

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

I note the Minister’s support for the concept of pooling. It is right that if local authorities choose to bring their capacities together, they should be allowed to do so. Does that not rather contrast, however, with the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report on housing, in which we suggested that local authorities might be able to pool their capabilities to borrow under their housing revenue account—

[Mr Betts]

Yes.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee. I would like to thank him for his courtesy in inviting me to the Select Committee on Monday, and I enjoyed talking through some of the issues that local councils face. He tempts me to move outside the scope of the amendments, and I think the Deputy Speaker has made clear his views on their scope, but I will expand a little further on pooling without being tempted too far outside the terms of the amendments.

Pooling gives councils a new tool to support economic growth across their area and greater ability to invest in the things that will have a greater impact on economic growth. As has been noted, the more the money comes together, the bigger its multiplier effect—the leveraging—can be. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a comparison between this and the debate earlier this week on pension schemes, and how, by bringing that money together and building it up into bigger pots, it can have a much more beneficial impact on local areas. That is why it is important that we allow councils to support economic priorities that have a benefit across a wider area. We are allowing councils better to weather any downturns in business rates income by sharing fluctuations in those rates. I will come back to the issue of a particular business.

It is worth local authorities looking at and thinking through the effects of pooling, which will give them greater resilience and greater buying power and allow greater economic growth. I encourage local authorities to consider it, and they have until 9 November to submit proposals. Earlier this year we had more than 20 expressions of interest from authorities. I stress that pooling is wholly voluntary but in terms of resilience, buying power and the ability to grow, I encourage councils to look carefully at it.

We heard queries about whether pools may cross county boundaries and whether they must be linked geographically or in any other way. In the true spirit of localism, it is for councils themselves to determine the make-up of a pool. They will not be restricted to pooling within a county boundary, allowing rates retention to support the priorities of local enterprise partnerships where this is what councils want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

Coming from a party that had 32 different benefits to work through, I find that quite an amazing comment.

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Brandon Lewis]

I give way, of course, to the Select Committee Chairman.

[Mr Betts]

It is all down to local councils to decide, but one of the complications is that the Government are localising council tax benefit, but centralising housing benefit. Local councils can get no sensible decisions from the Department for Work and Pensions on whether an arrangement will be allowed whereby applicants can go to one point for information and advice about both benefits. Are the Government to sort out this problem between the two Departments?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure we can take that back to the DWP, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this goes some way outside the remit of the amendments. I will reflect on his comment and come back to him on it. As I have said, councils will have choices about how to meet the cost of support, and local authorities that have consulted on their proposals will need to consider whether they want to apply for the grant or whether they need to make changes to the proposed schemes in order to do that. I shall return to that issue in a few moments, if Members wish it.

Let me deal with the specific amendments. I shall ask the House to agree to Lords amendment 3 and to the other Lords amendments, but to resist the Opposition amendments to the amendments, which I shall ask the hon. Member for Warrington North to withdraw.

Lords amendment 3 requires the Secretary of State to provide for a review of council tax reduction schemes within three years of the Act coming into effect and sets out certain considerations for that review. As Baroness Hanham made clear in the House of Lords, Government routinely review policy and respond to ensure our objectives are met. The transitional grant scheme announced on 16 October was a direct response to those authorities that are proposing schemes that place what the Government consider to be an unacceptable burden on the very poorest. That is why we will accept that amendment, but we will not seek to overturn it.

In accepting the principle that Government should keep policy under review, I would make a couple of points. The terms of the review, as set out in the amendment, do not bind the Government to any course of action as a result of the review’s recommendations. I know that the Local Government Association is keen for us to make that clear. We will need carefully to consider the findings of the review before considering how we will respond. We remain clear that localisation is our preferred policy. It strengthens incentives to support local growth and jobs, drive down fraud and error and hold down council tax. It gives local authorities control over how to design support schemes, taking into account the impact on local populations and council tax collection rates. It also ensures that funding for council tax support is paid directly to the authorities that provide vital services. All those are important considerations that the Government would want to take into account in any future review.

The Opposition’s amendments seek to ensure that such a review would apply only to England, but I believe that if the Secretary of State is required to review the operation of local schemes in England that are provided for under powers in this Bill, such a review should also take place in relation to schemes that are similarly provided for in Wales. Let me explain that further.

Such schemes will be provided for under regulations to be introduced by Welsh Ministers, so it is right for Welsh Ministers to lead on any review. In complying with the requirement of the Lords amendment, the Secretary of State will therefore seek to agree with Welsh Ministers the scope and format of the review in relation to Wales. It will also be for Welsh Ministers to consider the implications of the review’s recommendations for the framework for schemes provided for through their regulations, and the powers provided, at their request, in the current Bill.

In the light of these assurances, I do not think that the Opposition’s amendments are necessary.

Lords amendments 83, 84 and 86 would enable regulations made by the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers about council tax reduction schemes of billing authorities in England or Wales to make provision equivalent to the provisions of, or the provisions that could be made under, sections 32 to 34 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007. The amendments would also give billing authorities in England power to make additional provision in their local scheme which replicates, or could be made under, those sections. The amendments would allow local authority schemes to provide for extended payments, which are an important way of supporting work incentives.

Lords amendment 85 is a technical amendment. It is intended to ensure that the power in new paragraph 6 of schedule 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which allows major precepting and billing authorities to reach an agreement to vary payments or instalments that are required to be made under regulations about funds, applies—as was intended—only to regulations in relation to council tax.

Lords amendments 87 to 90 would ensure that the expertise of members of the First-tier Tribunal could be used in the deciding of appeals against decisions made in relation to council tax reduction schemes. The amendment would enable First-tier Tribunal members to sit as members of the Valuation Tribunal for England at the request of the president of the tribunal, with the approval of the Senior President of Tribunals, and only in relation to appeals that relate in whole or in part to council tax reduction schemes.

I urge Members to agree to the Lords amendments and resist the Commons amendments, and invite the hon. Member for Warrington North to consider withdrawing amendment (a).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend is correct to say that this is one of the taxes that the previous Government forced up while still running up record debts and deficit for this country. I am pleased to say that over the last couple of years, this Government have overseen council tax freezes that have led to a fall of 4.4% in real terms.

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

Surely the Minister will have noticed the difference. Under the last Government, the poorest people of working age paid lower increases in council tax because of the operation of the council tax benefit system. Under this Government, the poorest people of working age will pay the highest increases in council tax because of this Government’s changes to the council tax benefit system. How can the Minister possibly describe this Pickles tax as fair?

[Brandon Lewis]

Under the previous Government, welfare under the council tax benefit system rose from £2 billion to almost £4.5 billion—more than the amount spent on health, education and defence. It was right to do something about that and to fix the economic mess left by the previous Government.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

There were ear-marked allocations, including some transferred money from NHS funding, but even so local authorities are facing severe reductions. Westminster, a flagship Conservative authority, is cutting £1 million from its Supporting People budget. Hammersmith and Fulham was named for cutting eight community centres, I understand. Gloucester and Somerset councils are cutting libraries and closing them. Those are cuts in front-line services. Even authorities that are sharing services and cutting management costs still have to cut front-line services. Why has local government been singled out for bigger cuts than the rest of central Government combined?

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that local authorities across the country, such as my own in Great Yarmouth—we are a deprived area that has been hit with cuts—have said that they can deal with the changes without affecting front-line services? They are looking to do that through back-office savings and cross-working with other authorities.

[Mr Betts]

All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman’s authority must have had a much more favourable settlement than many others that are making those cuts. That is not happening on a party political basis. Conservative and Lib Dem authorities are making cuts as well. I am more than happy to receive a list from the Secretary of State of all the authorities that are managing the process without any cuts in front-line services. It will not include many Conservative and Lib Dem authorities, which are presumably making cuts not to spite the Government, but because of the position that they have been put in by the Government.

[Brandon Lewis]

rose—

[Mr Betts]

I am sorry, but I must make progress. Other Members want to speak in the debate.

My next point is one made by the Local Government Association on a cross-party basis. Why are the cuts front-end loaded? Will someone explain? Even if the Government feel that they have to make the cuts over the four-year period, why are they front-end loaded?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

The Secretary of State has had an exchange of letters with the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, who has complained bitterly that if more than £200 million is required nationally in capitalisation to pay for redundancy costs, that will result in a further cut in the grant to pay for it.

I will move on to the spread of the cuts. It is undoubtedly true that local authorities in the most deprived areas are getting the biggest cuts. Government Members will say that those authorities have the biggest grants, which by and large is true, but that is because they have the biggest needs and the most deprivation. The reality is that my local authority is getting more than an 8% reduction in its spending powers and Dorset county council is getting an increase. That is simply not fair.

[Brandon Lewis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Betts]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and think that that is reasonably fair. The spread of the cuts is simply not fair. I accept that the Government have provided an element of transitional grant to help those authorities with most deprivation, but they simply have not gone far enough to protect those with the most needs and the most deprivation. That is why those areas now face the biggest cuts in services.

Road Networks (Harlow)

Debate between Brandon Lewis and Clive Betts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. Has the hon. Gentleman cleared it with the Member introducing the debate and the Minister that he wants to speak?

[Brandon Lewis]

I must admit that I have not cleared it with the Minister, but I spoke earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). I am at your mercy, Mr Betts.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Okay.

[Brandon Lewis]

Thank you, Mr Betts, I appreciate that. I will ensure that in future I speak to the Minister as well.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I appreciate that the hon. Member is new to the House, so that is fine.

[Brandon Lewis]

I simply want to support my hon. Friend’s statement. I represent Great Yarmouth, and although the M11 is not there, or in Norfolk, it is the closest motorway to my constituency. It is a vital part of the artery joining the A11 and the A47 that runs through to our outer harbour and to Norwich airport, so it is hugely important to the economic development and growth of Great Yarmouth, which has pockets of high deprivation. Anything that we can do to alleviate the traffic problems along that artery, which this junction could—and clearly will—do, is of benefit to Great Yarmouth. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is important for Harlow, but also for the wider business community throughout East Anglia and the eastern region?