Covid-19 Lockdown: Homelessness and Rough Sleepers

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is by the good practice of councils such as Rugby Borough Council and programmes of that nature that they are able to work with those families and individuals before there is a need for them to sleep rough or become homeless—it is prevention. We know that since we implemented the Homelessness Reduction Act, that has had a significant impact in many parts of the country. I am pleased that we are determined and committed to make sure we implement that even further and work with local authorities to get better results.

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

First, congratulations are due on the efforts that were made to get rough sleepers off the streets from March onwards. Great work was done by councils with voluntary organisations and with good support financially from the Government as well. The real pressure on councils now, I am told by my own city of Sheffield, is from people presenting as homeless from the private rented sector. An increase has led Sheffield City Council, which is very good at dealing with these matters, to have 80 families now in hotels and another 200 in temporary accommodation. That will cost the council around £500,000 extra in this financial year. If dealing with homelessness has to be a priority for councils, which certainly it should be, will the Minister make it a priority for Government to make sure that councils have the extra resources they need directly to continue delivering the services that people in the private rented sector will need in the coming, very trying months?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments and articulation of the work that has been done by the Government and many local authorities and the voluntary and charitable sector in the covid-19 pandemic. He is absolutely right that we need to monitor and make sure we are working intensively with local authorities to understand the needs and the challenges. That is why we are working with local authorities to provide plans, that is why we have put in the Next Steps funding, to provide that Move On and Next Steps accommodation support. We will continue that work through the winter and evaluate any impacts that we are seeing through the covid pandemic. We need to bear in mind that we have also provided councils with over £6 billion in funding to deal with some of the issues that are coming out of the covid pandemic.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

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

Could I say that the Government’s decision to help councils with loss of funding, particularly for leisure centres, parking revenue and such things, is welcome? There is one group of authorities, however, that have not been compensated—the councils that run their leisure services at arm’s length. I raised this with the Minister’s predecessor back in July, and the response I got was that the Government

“are very serious about tackling it.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1224.]

Since then, because Sheffield has lost over £10 million, which it has not been compensated for, from its leisure centres’ loss of income, we have written as Sheffield MPs to the Secretary of State twice—once in August and once in September, the second with the local leisure clubs—and we have not had a response. Could the Minister therefore update the House on what is happening in general on this issue, and will he agree to meet Sheffield MPs to discuss this issue, which really affects our city and its finances?

[Luke Hall]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. We recognise the vital role leisure centre facilities play in keeping our communities safe and protecting mental health. We are working closely with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on a further package of support for leisure centres. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and other Sheffield MPs to discuss the matter.

Town and Country Planning

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

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

The planning system is there so that individuals and organisations can develop sites and buildings appropriately. It is also there to protect the community from inappropriate development. Permitted development rights confer rights on some individuals but take away rights from others to have their say on developments. They take away community rights to object and to have an application turned down. That is a very important and serious issue that we all ought to be addressing.

I want to talk about space standards. Shortly after the Government produced their independent review of conversions under permitted development, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) drew attention, I asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions whether it was reasonable that flats of 16 square meters were allowed to be built, which was 1 square metre larger than the footprint of his car. Clearly, it is not a reasonable size for properties. The Prime Minister’s response to my question, which was welcome, was that the Government will

“give people the space they need to live and grow in the homes that we will build.”—[Official Report, 22 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 2149.]

Given that response, I wrote to the Housing Minister on behalf of the Select Committee on 4 August to ask what he was doing to put the Prime Minister’s commitment into effect. I have not had a reply to that letter. I thought the Minister had either forgotten about it or was waiting to reveal a significant change of policy. It appears that it is the latter. At least on that issue, we now have some recognition that local authorities can take into account the issue of space standards, along with the right to light and the impact on the wider environment from permitted development applications. That is welcome, because properties of 16 square metres or even smaller are nonsensical and not fit in the modern age for anyone to live in.

In terms of section 106, this is a serious matter. If the Government are seriously going to allow more development without 106 commitments, that will simply mean we have fewer affordable rented homes built, because the reality today is that the majority of affordable rented homes come through 106 commitments. That will have a significant impact on communities up and down the country. Why are the Government excluding permitted development from that obligation? I have not seen any justification for that. That is what happens, and it is important, so we ought to take account of it.

The Select Committee produced a report in 2019 on the future of the high street, “High streets and town centres in 2030”, which we are going to update in the light of the covid situation. We looked at permitted development. There are some odd properties that had been for retail use and can be converted for residential use perfectly reasonably, and those should be encouraged and helped. That can be done through the planning system now, if the development is appropriate. The problem is that some of our high streets and town and city centres need more radical reconstruction. They need to be redeveloped significantly and cleared. That is why we called for improved compulsory purchase order powers for councils in our report. However, we can find in a couple of years’ time that the local plan proposing the clearance of a derelict and underused retail area is made more difficult to construct and implement, because it seeks to get a CPO and demolish derelict retail properties that have just been made into residential homes. Trying to put together rights to convert—and properly convert—in the light of wider local planning situations simply is not taken account of.

Our 2019 report therefore said:

“The Government should suspend any further extension of PDRs, pending an evaluation of their impact on the high street.”

Other organisations have gone further. The Town and Country Planning Association, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Institute of British Architects, and the Chartered Institute of Housing have all called for an impact assessment of the PDRs that have been allowed and changed over the last few years and those proposed for the future. Indeed, the Select Committee first called for an impact assessment back in 2012. If the Secretary of State and the Minister believe there are just benefits and no disbenefits from expanding PDR, why will they not commit now to do a full impact assessment of the changes made previously and the changes proposed now?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

This set of SIs is an answer to a massively important question about how we build more homes that are fit for communities, but the answer is blindingly obviously the wrong one. There is no evidence that planning logjams such as those to which the SIs are meant to be a solution are the problem. Some 40% of homes with planning permission over the past 10 years have not been built.

We need to look instead at some of the other reasons we are not building the houses that we need. It is about, for example, the lack of funding for local authorities—the lack of understanding that we need to directly intervene through council housing and social rented housing to provide the homes that we need. It is also about the fact that the price of land is so utterly prohibitive. It would be much more sensible in this time of rapid and urgent legislation to tackle the Land Compensation Act 1961 and reduce the value of land as a whole so that we get more houses built that are affordable.

The relaxation of permitted development rights has, as we heard from the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), already reduced quality.   The Government’s own commission reported that seven out of 10 buildings built under the existing rights lacked adequate light and ventilation, and were, as the hon. Gentleman said, creating the slums of tomorrow.

That was not always the way the Conservative party approached social rented housing, by the way. Harold Macmillan, when housing Minister, did tremendous work. He was the one behind the Parker Morris standard: really good quality council houses, with lots of good space around them. Council houses can be good houses, and that is what they need to be. [Interruption.] If I have got something wrong there, I will give way.

[Mr Betts]

Macmillan homes, built after the Bevan homes in the 1950s, were actually built to smaller space standards. I know that because I was actually brought up in one.

[Tim Farron]

I am delighted to take the correction. And there was me praising a Conservative! What Macmillan did do was build numbers, and the estates of the ’50s were certainly better than the estates of the ’60s, but I do indeed stand corrected.

The biggest concern I think many of us will have is the undermining of democracy: communities having what will be done to them dictated to them, without them having the ability to contradict or to say otherwise. If you are somebody who represents two national parks, the lakes and the dales, and the wonderful communities within them—Grange, Kendal and others—you will be particularly worried about what that means. We are not nimbys, by the way.

End of Eviction Moratorium

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Sarah Dines is not here, so I call Clive Betts, Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

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

I have two simple asks of the Minister. First, does he recognise that there will be people in dire financial hardship who struggle and cannot pay their rent? I heard what he said about help for discretionary housing payments. Will he continue to monitor that, and if local authorities say they do not have sufficient to help people in real need, will he look at expanding the amount of money?



Secondly, with regard to the issue of discretion, will the Minister confirm that, as long as landlords have talked to their tenants and presented their financial information to the courts, when applying for a section 21 notice or possession on ground 8, of rent arrears, the courts have no discretion at all to reject those applications? Will he further consider those points, do what the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has asked and strengthen the pre-action protocol to give the courts more discretion?

[Christopher Pincher]

We always listen with great care to the Chairman of the Select Committee. I can confirm that we will keep all our arrangements, including our financial provisions, under review as the situation develops; it probably has some time to go before things begin to get better. He mentions section 21. He knows that the Government are committed to repealing section 21 in our renters’ reform Bill, and we will do that at the appropriate time, when there is a sensible and stable economic and social terrain on which to do it.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the courts do have discretion to prioritise the cases before them. He will also know that, if landlords do not provide the right information to the courts in pursuit of their section 21 application, the courts have the discretion to adjourn the case and push it to the end of the queue. I am quite sure that Sir Terence Etherton and Mr Justice Knowles will look carefully at landlords who fail to comply with their duties. Our approach has always been to be fair—fair to those who have lost out as a result of the epidemic, and also fair to landlords, particularly smaller landlords, who need their incomes.

Rented Homes: End of Evictions Ban

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his question. As I said, we will bring forward the renters’ reform Act, which will abolish section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, in due course, when we have stable terrain on which to do so. That will improve tenants’ rights. We will also ensure that there is provision for a lifetime deposit scheme in that Bill. As I have described from my discussions with the Master of the Rolls, the courts have set out strict procedures that landlords will have to follow if they want to claim repossession of their properties. That is the right and balanced course, and I commend it.

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

In the end, as I am sure the Minister will agree, we all want to get to a position where no tenant is evicted because of covid-related matters. I recognise that the Government have made efforts, through the statutory instrument and the guidance, to toughen up the pre-action protocol, but what happens if a landlord comes to the court with all the information about a tenant’s circumstances but still wants to go for a section 21 eviction—they do not have to give any reasons—or for a ground 8 eviction, where simply rent arrears will do? If all the information is given to the court, does the court have any discretion to refuse the eviction request?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the Chairman of the Select Committee for that. First, the landlord will have to bring all the information that is required before the court. The courts want to sit in order that a duty solicitor will be present, but other interlocutors may be present to mediate, even at that late stage, between the landlord and the tenant to ensure that the right outcome can be achieved. Under the section 21 rules of the 1988 Act, the courts do not have discretion in that particular circumstance, but I am sure that in those cases where egregious rent arrears predate the covid emergency, where there is domestic abuse or where there is antisocial behaviour, we want to see the landlord have their right to bring forward their repossession case. That is what they are allowed to do under the law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I pay enormous tribute to the care workers on Teesside and of course to our local NHS, which we share as Teesside MPs. This has been a constantly evolving and very complex situation, as Governments around the world, including our own, have obviously learned as matters have progressed. We have acted consistently and in good faith throughout. We have worked very hard with the care sector to protect patients. The £600 million infection control fund that we have instigated is designed to ensure that the care sector is safe, with a strong measure of containment against the disease for patients going forward.

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

The Minister may not know this, but on 1 June, following the Prime Minister’s appearance at the Liaison Committee, I wrote to him about local authority involvement in tackling this virus. In particular, I asked him to

“give an assurance that data will be shared fully with all partners…In particular…directors of public health.”

I have not had a response to that letter, but I have heard from Greg Fell, the director of public health in Sheffield, and other directors that they are only getting generalised data—they are not getting, on a daily basis, the names, addresses and NHS numbers of those infected and those they have been in contact with. Does the Minister accept, therefore, that while this information is held by Public Health England, it needs to be passed on to directors of public health, and passed on quickly, and will he give an assurance that that will happen this week?

[Mr Clarke]

Since 24 June, all local authorities have been able to access postcode-level testing data through their director of public health, and that is securely shared by PHE on a weekly basis. I understand that that has been going on pretty much from the moment that it became available. PHE also shares information with local directors of public health as part of the routine investigation of outbreaks and incidents. That includes information on individual cases and their contacts, as required, to support the public health response.

Housing, Communities and Local Government: Departmental Spending

Clive Betts Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

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

First, I will look at the covid crisis and how local government has responded to it. I think I speak for every Member of this House when I say that local councils, collectively across the piece, whatever their party, have responded magnificently. We do things virtually these days, so perhaps a virtual round of applause for local councils from Parliament would not go amiss.

What local councils have done is deliver social care; rehouse rough sleepers; work with the voluntary sector to help vulnerable people; administer the business grants scheme that the Government introduced; get the director of public health working at a local level on testing, tracking and tracing; and, of course, keep essential services, such as refuse collection, up and running for our constituents. They have done all that against the background of austerity. Local councils have had bigger cuts to their funding than any other part of the public sector in the past 10 years. The National Audit Office figures show an 80% cut in grants and an almost 30% cut in spending power over that 10-year period. Of course, the councils in the poorest areas have, by and large, had the largest cuts in grant, because they had the largest grants in the first place.

Despite that situation and despite the fact that they have had to try to prioritise social care spending for both adults and children, councils have kept services going. When we look at some of the cuts that they have had to make in other services, we see that it was nearly 50% on housing services, 50% on health and safety, and 20% in five years in real terms in public health grants. Those services—housing, health and safety and public health—are exactly the sorts of services that have been required to deliver in response to covid. None the less, they have stepped up to the mark and done extremely well.

What have the Government done in response? I think that we have had a change of language from Ministers, which is a bit concerning. On 16 March, the Secretary of State said that the Government would do whatever was necessary to support these efforts—very similar words to the ones that were used in relation to the health service.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Betts]

I will give way, but just once I think.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will be very brief. Did my hon. Friend share my sense of déjà vu when councils were promised “whatever funding is needed”? Nottingham City spent £8 million on fire safety improvement post-Grenfell and it did not receive a single penny from central Government, despite exactly the same sort of comments being made at the time.

[Mr Betts]

That leads into another area. The Select Committee has just produced a report about cladding and other such issues. We have challenged the Government to produce funding through that report, so I am sure that we will take up that issue as well.

The change came when the Secretary of State appeared before the Select Committee. Suddenly, he was saying that they had asked councils to do things, but that they would be fully compensated for the things that they had been asked to do. Then there was a very general list. The Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee, as well as the Local Government Association, have been trying to get more information on that. There is still a lack of clarity about precisely what will be funded. That is important, and quite different from the national health service, which seems to be given, rightly, “everything that it takes”—the commitment given to local councils.

We have had tranches of money—£2.16 billion then £500 million—given to councils to cover both extra costs and lost revenue, which is just as important for many councils as the extra costs they have incurred. However, the LGA is saying that by the end of June, according to the returns that went to the Ministry, the costs were £4.8 billion against the £3.7 billion received—a gap of £1 billion. The Government said they would give some help with lost income by compensating councils for 75% of the amount after the first 5% of losses, which is welcome, and somehow apportioning the lost revenue from council tax and business rates. There are two questions to ask about this. The Government have already included loss of income in the £3.7 billion compensation, so will the commitment to cover 75% be reduced? I see the Minister shaking his head; it would help if that was explained very clearly indeed.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Mr Betts]

Normally I would give way, but Madam Deputy Speaker is looking askance at me, so I think I had better move on.

The second question is can the Government not bring forward a bit sooner the apportionment of losses from council tax and business rates? Waiting until the spending review introduces an extra element of uncertainty.

I have another question about compensation for losses in the leisure sector. Many authorities—about 60, I think—of all political persuasions do not provide leisure services directly; instead, they provide them through arm’s length arrangements. Sheffield does it through Sheffield International Venues and has some magnificent facilities, including Sheffield Arena and Ponds Forge, which is an international-class swimming pool, and lots of community facilities. What we need is an assurance that income losses for councils in that situation will be treated the same as income losses for councils that provide the services directly. That is an important point for many councils up and down the country.

It still feels like local government is on a life support machine, waiting for the next bit of revenue to trickle down from the next ministerial statement, rather than having the certainty that they need to plan. Many councils are now looking at making cuts and emergency budgets and talking openly about section 114 notices. Yes, okay, the Ministry has said, “Come and see us before you issue a 114 notice,” but that is too late. We do not want councils to reach the point where they are thinking about a 114 and planning for it. We want them to have the certainty of getting funding so they are not driven into that position.

This is not just about funding for this year; it is about funding for next year as well. Many councils, including Sheffield Council, have reserves to see them through this year, but using them will just postpone the problem to next year. Also, many councils had plans for efficiency savings, which have been put on hold as managerial expertise is put into dealing with the current crisis. Efficiency measures that have had to be put to one side for the time being are another loss for councils that needs to be recognised properly.

Let us have more certainty that all the costs that local authorities incur in covid-related matters will be covered by the Government. Let us have another discussion with the LGA and consider whether it is fair that councils should have to stand even 25% of income losses. Let us have an assurance that arm’s length arrangements for leisure will be covered. Let us bring forward the commitment on council tax and business rates to before the spending review. Let us not get to the point of discussions about section 114 notices by providing certainty of funding.

Finally, there is the future. What local authorities need is a proper long-term sustainable financial settlement.

The covid crisis offers a watershed, a turning point, an opportunity to change things, but I want to put down five markers for the Government, drawing on the Select Committee’s report in 2019. First, we want at least a multi-year settlement, to give that certainty. The last four-year settlement was welcome. I understand why it has not been repeated in the current crisis, but it is certainly needed.

Secondly, we need a recognition that local authorities need a significant real-terms increase in their funding. The Local Government Association’s calculation of an £8 billion gap, even before covid came along, has to be recognised. Thirdly, if we really are to end austerity, it is not just about funding local councils so they do not have to make more cuts; it is about giving them the money to restore many of the essential services they have had to cut.

Fourthly, we have to devolve to councils the power not merely to spend but to raise resources in the first place. If we do that, however, we must recognise that some councils are less able to raise resources than others, so if we devolve more spending arrangements to councils, we will need a fall-back position—a central fund for councils to deal with the equalisation problem.

Finally, let us have a proper, cross-party, long-term funding agreement for social care. The two Select Committees proposed a solution with a social care premium three years ago. Let us reactivate that. Giving councils that direct source of funding for social care will also release funding for other essential services. I say to the Minister: think of MPs here today arguing for extra funding as allies in the battle with the Treasury to get the money that councils need to fight the covid crisis, but to fight it in a way that does not produce extra cuts to essential council services already devastated by 10 years of austerity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We will start with a time limit of four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

I thank the Minister for his comments, although I still think there are issues to be worked through. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Chair of the PAC, raised a point about clarity. We still need that clarity from the Government. I would still like it on the record, too, that the £3.7 billion will not be reduced by the commitment to cover 75% of income losses. That needs to be clear. [Interruption.] The Minister is nodding, which is very helpful.

Finally, I want to pick up on the shared prosperity fund. No area should get less than it gets now, but no area should get less than it would have got under the new arrangements that would have come into place if we had remained in the EU. That is a very important point for South Yorkshire, and I hope that the Minister will consider it.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

Westferry Printworks Development

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon Gentleman is completely incorrect in that respect. First, a lot of documents are already in the public domain, and I will come on to discuss that. The reasons for my decision are set out clearly in the decision letter. From the comments that we have heard from the hon. Member for Croydon North, I suspect he has not taken the trouble to read it. The inspector’s report is already in the public domain, with the representations made by the parties. Since my receipt of the letter from the Chair of the Select Committee, we have undertaken the process I have just described, which, as Members can imagine, is not one that one does in a day or two. It has taken us time. As Members will see when I publish the documents later today, and in the letter I have written to the Chair of the Select Committee, we have taken that process very seriously, because transparency matters, openness matters and settling this matter matters, because I certainly do not want to be the subject of the innuendo and false accusations that the Opposition are choosing to peddle.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for committing to publish that document and send it to the Select Committee, although it might have been helpful if we had had it before the debate today. The Committee will obviously want to look at it and may then want to enter into further communication or, indeed, even talk to the Secretary of State about it. I ask him one thing: will the documentation that he sends to the Select Committee include everything that he said to the Cabinet Secretary following his investigations into the matter?

[Robert Jenrick]

It will include most of that information, subject only to the benchmark of the Freedom of Information Act, which I have just described. I think that is the right approach, and it is on the advice of my Department that I do that. If this debate truly is—I suspect it is not, because I suspect this debate is mainly motivated by party political considerations—concerned with the probity of the planning system, I am sure that the Chair of the Select Committee, for whom I have the greatest respect, would agree that it is absolutely right that we release documentation in accordance with the rules, bearing in mind that this is a live planning matter.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Secretary of State is obviously going to respond to the letter I sent to him from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. We may well come back to some of the issues, depending on what he says to the Committee in that regard. I said previously in the House that these matters are dealt with best when we have the facts in front of us, rather than supposition and conjecture, because that leads us into very difficult territory. I have also said that I am not accusing the Secretary of State or anybody of wrongdoing. I want to see the facts and look at the situation, along with the Committee, and then come back to any further questions we may have.

In the absence of the documentation—even if it has been sent to the Committee by now, I have not had a chance to read it before the debate—I say to the Secretary of State that there will probably be some questions about the precise nature of conversations at the dinner. Whether someone sees a video or not, I would have thought, would have been fairly well stuck in the Secretary of State’s mind. However, when he had been to the dinner, did he immediately inform his officials that he had been present at the dinner, that he had sat next to Mr Desmond, that the matter of the application had been raised with him and that he had refused to discuss it? If so, when was that confirmed with officials? Did he put that in writing to officials, and, if so, did they then advise him whether it was appropriate for him to carry on considering the application and making a judgment about it? If so, was that put in writing to him? If officials had reservations, was that put in writing to him as well?

Did officials and the Secretary of State at any point, therefore, consider whether in the light of the conversations at the dinner and a pretty well documented and considered attempt by the applicant to influence the Secretary of State at the dinner, it might have been appropriate for him to withdraw from the decision made at that time? When the case was going to court and the Secretary of State decided to withdraw his decision, because of the appearance of bias with regard to the financial liability on the developer that would be removed, was any part of his decision to withdraw also based on the possibility of an appearance of bias in relation to the events at the dinner that he or officials concluded might be an issue that came up in court at the time?

In planning, perception can be just as important as the facts. Even if the Secretary of State refused to discuss the matter at the dinner—I completely accept his word on that—should not the fact that the developer with an interest had sat next to him at the dinner and raised the matter with him have alerted him to the possibility of an appearance of bias and of accusations following if he made the decision in favour of the developer? Again, appearances are really important.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It was a pleasure to serve for four years on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee under the hon. Gentleman’s chairmanship. When he was interviewed recently by the BBC—it might have been Sky—did he not say that there was no information that the Secretary of State was guilty of any wrongdoing? Will he confirm that that was his position then, and is his position now?

[Mr Betts]

We talked about that yesterday. Yes, of course I said there was no evidence. I have not seen any evidence, and I repeated just now that I am not accusing anyone of wrongdoing, What I am saying is that perception and appearances in these matters are almost as important as the facts themselves.

Although the Secretary of State recognises that an informed and fair-minded person might come to the view that there was bias on his part in terms of the liability to the developer that was removed by his decision, did he at any point consider that an informed and fair-minded person might conclude that the events of the dinner could also lead to bias on his part? That seems crucial. If that is the case, when he reflects on the matter now, does he think that he might have done better had he decided not to take part in the decision-making process, once the developer had, quite wrongly—I repeat, the developer had, quite wrongly— tried to influence him at the dinner?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am now delighted to call, to make his maiden speech, Mr Mark Eastwood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, but, alas, I fear the Opposition have misjudged the mood of this House and the country by using parliamentary time for their own political flare-up and indignation. Last December, the Labour party lost vast swathes of support across the country because it came across as completely disconnected from the people and communities that traditionally turned out en masse to support it. Far be it from me to offer political advice to the Opposition, but this debate’s very existence demonstrates that that disconnection is terminal. The Labour party has completely forgone the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s economic plans to recover from coronavirus.

It is a pleasure to follow Opposition Members, but I fear that they all have a foggy memory and a worrying lack of understanding about the planning process. It is not unusual for Housing Secretaries to call in planning decisions, just as the last Labour Government regularly did, nor is it new or unusual to overrule the Planning Inspectorate on careful and balanced consideration. As for the decision under scrutiny today, the only reason why this issue required a ministerial decision at all was that Tower Hamlets Council repeatedly failed to make a determination in the first place, cancelling five meetings to ensure that they did not make a decision. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the planning system has robust protections and safeguards in place to ensure the rule of law and the absence of bias.

[Mr Betts]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Jupp]

I am not going to give way.

Ministers involved in the planning process take advice from officials with full disclosure. The insistence from Opposition Members that a ministerial decision was taken after a circumstantial meeting is without basis and totally absurd. Above all, is not today’s debate a missed opportunity for the Opposition to discuss policy, not politics, and delivery in the housing system—something they failed to do time and time again? Should not the planning system be reformed to ensure that planned development for new homes, such as in Tower Hamlets, is encouraged rather than discouraged and not fudged around like it is by Opposition Members? Should we not modernise the planning system to make it easier for councils and developers to deliver more of the homes we need?

I am acutely aware that the Opposition have tried to hold this debate in a narrow political vacuum, but they would be wise to consider their own record when in power—although it was quite a while ago—and the real concerns of the country at large. The country expects us in this House to debate how to tackle the greatest economic and fiscal challenges of our lifetime, including how we are getting the economy going again, how we are safely relaxing restrictions and how we are protecting lives and livelihoods. Yet here the Opposition are trying to weaponise planning decisions to score petty political points—nul points.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I think there is one thing in this debate upon which we can all agree: that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) made a fantastic, powerful and personal maiden speech. He is right to say that, when we are first elected to this place, we sit in the Tea Room and talk to each other about the relative merits of our constituencies. He will know that, regrettably, when we turn to talking about majorities, size really does matter.

I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Henley (John Howell), for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), for East Devon (Simon Jupp), for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for Guildford (Angela Richardson), for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) and for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) on their powerful contributions to the debate.

Let me be clear: we reject any allegations of impropriety either in relation to the appeal at Westferry Printworks or more widely. Today, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, our Department has published the documents on the record regarding the Westferry decision. They are now in the public domain for the full scrutiny of Members and the wider public. Those documents show what we knew from the outset: that no improper action was undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

As my right hon. Friend made clear in his remarks, it is far from uncommon for Ministers to disagree with a planning inspector’s recommendation. The involvement of Ministers in the planning system is clearly guided by both the ministerial code and the guidance set out by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That guidance details the duty to behave fairly and to approach matters before us with an open mind. As my right hon. Friend has made clear abundantly again and again, the reason for granting planning permission for the proposed development at the Westferry Printworks are detailed in his letter of 14 January.

[Mr Betts]

The Minister is quite right: it is not unusual for the Secretary of State or another Minister to make a planning decision, even in contradiction of a planning inspector’s recommendations. Can he think of another example where a Secretary of State has made a planning decision and then ruled his own decision to be unlawful?

[Christopher Pincher]

There are such examples. Indeed, I remember that the former Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Prescott, overruled his own Planning Inspectorate in order to build a tower like the one proposed at Westferry. The reasons for the granting of permission are fully set out in the sealed order of 21 May. As my right hon. Friend has stated, and as I will reiterate, there was absolutely no impropriety in this case. It is a fundamental legal right that planning decisions may be challenged, and it is by no means unusual for that to happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right to highlight the pace of implementation as being important. Registrations for the new building safety fund, which opened on 1 June, have now reached 458. I am pleased to say that the draft building safety Bill will be published soon for scrutiny, and remediation continues across the estate where it is needed, despite the covid-19 crisis. We are determined to do all we can to support residents.

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

In remembering all those who lost their lives at Grenfell and the families and friends who are left behind, it is shocking that three years after Grenfell there are still 2,000 high-rise residential blocks that have dangerous cladding on them. The £1 billion building safety fund is welcome, but it will only remediate 600 of those blocks; it will do nothing to touch lower-rise residential accommodation, dangerous insulation and other fire safety defects, leaving thousands of people worried about their safety and their financial circumstances. Will the Minister go back to the Chancellor and put it to him that we now need a great deal more cash—the Select Committee says probably up to £15 billion—to ensure that fire safety defects are removed from all residential buildings within the next two years, which means five years after the Grenfell disaster?

[Christopher Pincher]

As I said in answer to the previous question, pace is crucial in this regard, which is why the Chancellor has made available in this financial year £1 billion to remediate those buildings that suffer from non-ACM cladding. That is on top of the £600 million that we have made available for ACM-clad buildings. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is going to be necessary for a great many buildings to be remediated. We would expect some of that funding to come forward from the building owners so that those who let or are leaseholders in the buildings do not fall liable for the funds. We believe that £1 billion, now, to get on with the job, will go a great deal along the way to make sure that buildings are made safe for their residents.

Planning Process: Probity

Clive Betts Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let me just say that we are straying from what the urgent question is about, so, unfortunately, we will have to move on.

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

In the interests of transparency, may I say that the Select Committee has not considered this matter? Last night I did receive a letter from the mayor of Tower Hamlets, but the Committee has not given consideration to that. Does the Minister agree that such matters as this are best dealt with when all the facts are in the public domain, otherwise judgments will be formed along the basis of supposition and conjecture, and, were the Committee to make a request to the Secretary of State, would he be willing to provide us with all relevant documentation so that the Committee could give proper, careful consideration to these matters, based on the facts that are available?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I remind him that the decision of the Secretary of State, as I have already said, is in the public domain. The application is a live one, and documentation will be published in the usual way. We always take seriously, and consider weightily, requests from the Committee, and I am sure that we will happily consider this one. However, my right hon. Friend has published his decision, it is a very clear decision, and all documents will be published in the usual way, as they are through live planning applications.