Capital Projects: Spending Decisions

Clive Betts Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Lee Rowley]

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

Building Safety

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and many of the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill are designed explicitly to aid the entry of new small and medium-sized enterprises into the construction sector. Many of those provisions follow on from the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who as a champion of self and custom builders has done more than anyone else in this House to help to ensure diversification in housing supply.

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

I welcome the progress made so far. In a couple of weeks’ time, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee will be looking further at the omissions that probably still exist in the system, including how the Secretary of State will actually get the money out of the product providers, on which he has not given details.

Today’s big omission is social housing. Help for leaseholders is very welcome, but social housing providers, housing associations and councils are challenged with disrepair problems and the need to make their homes more energy-efficient, on top of which they now have the building safety work. Apart from on ACM cladding, there is no help at all for social housing providers. Why can the Secretary of State not remedy this unfairness?

[Michael Gove]

The Chairman of the Select Committee makes an important point. I am grateful for his support for the progress we have made. I am well aware of the pressures on the social housing sector and of the need to work collectively to ensure it can discharge its obligations. I hope to say more about how we can do so in the weeks ahead.

Levelling-up Fund Round 2

Clive Betts Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why do we not stop the pretence that this has anything whatever to do with levelling up? Councils have to spend a lot of time bidding for one of about 300 pots of money. There is no real strategy at all and no joining up between the different bids. They look more like photo opportunities so that Ministers can go around the country announcing the successful results. Why will the Minister not listen to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee? We called for the bid process to be dropped for the most part and for Government Departments to instead consider how they can reposition the totality of their spending on a strategic basis to help the poorest parts of the country. The Secretary of State agreed that that is what should be done, but the permanent secretary said no progress has been made. Just say it—she wants a photo bid. Come up to Sheffield in South Yorkshire and stand at a bus stop. She will have a long time to wait before one comes along, because once again we have been unsuccessful with the bid we put in.

[Lucy Frazer]

I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not been successful. There is, of course, a round 3. There is co-ordinated action across Government to ensure that we support and level up. I am sorry he does not feel that £2 billion for levelling up across the country in terms of culture, transport and improving the areas where communities live is not worthwhile. We believe it is.

Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill

Clive Betts Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Efford. I thank colleagues from across the House for agreeing to sit on this Bill Committee and enabling us to scrutinise the Bill in some detail.

The Bill is centred around the report on exempt accommodation produced by the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The Chair of that Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, has agreed to serve on this Committee, and several other colleagues who sit on that Select Committee are here.

From the outset, I want to make clear that what we are seeking to do is to drive out rogue landlords, not hinder the really brilliant work being done by thousands of organisations across the country who provide supported housing for vulnerable people. To achieve that, clause 1 sets out the advice that needs to be provided to the Secretary of State. It is clear that this is a complex policy area and we want to make sure that we do not have unforeseen, inadvertent consequences that inconvenience the good people who provide an excellent service. I believe the clause is non-controversial. It requires the Supported Housing Advisory Panel to be set up; the rest of the provisions are permissive.

In formulating the Bill, we have sought to detail the sorts of expertise we believe are required. The panel the Secretary of State is required to set up will provide information to housing authorities, social services authorities and so on, so it needs expertise from people involved in social housing, local housing authorities and social services, as well as someone who has the interests of charities at heart and someone who has the interests of residents at heart, which often gets overlooked. If more expertise is required, the clause permits the Secretary of State to appoint to the panel people other than those specific representatives, but it could well be that someone who is nominated to the panel is expert in more than one field, so one representative from each of those areas is not a requirement.

The clause then sets out in some detail what the panel should do and what advice should be given to the Secretary of State. Obviously, the main purpose of the panel is to ensure that the Secretary of State is informed when action is required to be taken under later clauses. I commend the clause to the Committee and I look forward to contributions from colleagues.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I will not refer to your abject failure at the weekend to defeat Sheffield United in the cup. That would be very unfair of me.

[The Chair]

It wasn’t me personally!

[Mr Betts]

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Harrow East, my honourable Select Committee friend. We worked together closely on the Bill, as did the whole Select Committee; our report on the issue was unanimous. We described what we saw, which—notwithstanding the excellent provision that does exist in the sector—is a system and a delivery of service that is in many respects a complete mess. We saw appalling examples of accommodation that was not fit for purpose, and that the supposed support in this supported accommodation did not exist, consisting as it did of a “support worker” opening a door and shouting up the stairs, “Are you alright, then?” It was absolutely dreadful.

What was in some ways even worse is that the taxpayer was paying millions of pounds for this service, although the Department for Work and Pensions could not actually tell us how much. In the end, though, the Committee is not asking for more money. We are saying that the money that is there could be spent an awful lot better. Delivering to very vulnerable people a better service than they are currently getting and improving the lives of people in communities that have been blighted by this are the objectives we have in mind for the legislation. We do not want to drive out good providers or close down good accommodation. We want to get at the rogue providers who operate scams to make millions of pounds out of housing benefit at the expense of vulnerable people who are not getting the service they deserve.

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank all Members who have joined us this morning, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, whom I congratulate on reaching Committee with the Bill. I agree with both what he said in his introduction and the comments from the hon. Member for Sheffield South East.

Supported housing is a vital safety net for many people, enabling them to live independently with some support. There are many excellent examples of supported housing providing support for people experiencing homelessness, older people, people with a disability and those suffering from mental ill health, to name but a few, but as we are all aware, there are rogue landlords operating supported housing schemes. Those landlords are exploiting the vulnerable people they are supposed to be helping. This is completely unacceptable. We must continue to deliver a clear message to those providers: their time is up.

This Bill, which the Government support, includes a range of measures to drive out rogue providers and drive up the quality of supported housing. It is a very important measure that comes after many Government interventions. In October 2020, we published the national statement of expectations setting out the Government’s vision for quality supported housing. In the same month, we launched the pilots, and in March 2022, following the evaluation of the pilots, we announced our intention to bring forward regulations. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has come forward with his Bill. We have also announced that over the next three years we are expanding the pilots to 22 new local authorities, with a further £20 million programme of support. The Government are sending a clear message: we will not tolerate abuse of the supported housing system. Time is up for rogue landlords.

Clause 1 places a duty on the Secretary of State to set up a new advisory panel and to appoint a chair to the panel through consulting the members. The new panel will advise on the design and implementation of the measures in the Bill. It will be able to take a strategic view of our plans, as well as undertake its own work related to supported housing. This is an excellent opportunity to bring together key stakeholders to share their expertise and to advise the Government. The advisory panel will give Government direct access to stakeholders and their knowledge of the sector at a crucial time when we will be consulting on how best to deliver and implement the measures in the Bill. The panel will consist of those with an interest from across the supported housing sector, including but not limited to those who represent the interests of registered providers, local housing authorities, charities providing supported housing and residents of supported housing. I look forward to convening the panel at the earliest opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. Before we move on to clause 3, I should say that we are nearly 30 minutes into the sitting. We have a hard stop at 11.25 am, and a few amendments need to be debated. We can organise another sitting to complete the Bill; if that is the will of the Committee, that will obviously take place. Proper scrutiny must take place, but I remind the Committee that 11.25 am is a hard stop.

Clause 3

National Supported Housing Standards

[Mr Betts]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations confer powers on local housing authorities to enforce the National Supported Housing Standards.

(6) Regulations made under subsection (5) shall be in a form analogous to Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004, with such modifications, amendments, disapplication or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State shall consider appropriate for the purpose of enabling local housing authorities to secure compliance with the National Supported Housing Standards.

(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State the option of giving local housing authorities the power to introduce a scheme to enforce the National Supported Housing Standards.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, at end insert—

“(5) If, at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the power in subsection (1) is yet to be exercised, the Secretary of State must publish, in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit, a report setting out the progress that has been made towards doing so.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to explain why they have not introduced National Supported Housing Standards, if they have not done so within a year of Royal Assent of the Act.

Clause stand part.

[Mr Betts]

Thank you, Mr Efford; I take your strictures to heart. I have two amendments. The first one recognises the need for standards to be set down and for a discussion about how that might best be done. I am happy to hear what the Minister has to say. We all want to see standards effectively laid down and followed through; the current lack of standards is a real problem in the sector.

I move on to my second amendment. I am not doubting the good intentions of the Minister in any way, but we have, of course, had one or two changes of Minister; by the time we come to implement this, someone else might be there. I am trying to get on the record what happens if the powers that may be exercised by Ministers are not exercised in practice. Is there a mechanism for whoever the Minister is at the time to report back to Members about what progress has or has not been made? I would be happy to hear the Minister’s response.

[Bob Blackman]

I should say from the outset that I agree with the thrust of the amendment, but we need to look at the issue in some detail to ensure that it reflects exactly what we are seeking to do in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East will not press this to a vote. We will seek assurances from the Minister about what can be done to ensure that we enforce these regulations on local authorities and that we have proper standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

Absolutely. I think that the sector is very supportive of what we are doing with this private Member’s Bill. There is some concern about unintended consequences, and that is why consultation will be key.

I would be happy to discuss the amendment further with the hon. Member for Sheffield South East as an option in the consultation document, rather than setting it out in the Bill. I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Betts]

Given that assurance, I will not press my amendment. I look forward to further consultations on it.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Mr Betts—

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

On amendment 2, it is unusual for the Government to be required, in a Bill, to make progress reports on individual Bill measures in the way proposed in this amendment. Clearly, there are already well established methods for holding Government to account—including by inviting or calling Ministers to one’s Select Committee. However, there is a requirement in relation to the licensing regulations—this is in clause 4(2)—for the Secretary of State to give a progress report if he has not put in place the licensing regulations after 12 months.

Today, I can give an oral commitment here in Committee that if that clause is triggered, we will also give an update on the national supported housing standards at the same time. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

I turn to clause 3 stand part. Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to prepare and publish new national supported housing standards. The standards will cover both the adequacy of the accommodation and the quality of the care, support or supervision provided. They will be enforced through the licensing schemes to ensure that only those who meet the standards will be granted a licence.

To take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, our intention is firmly to work with DWP to look to align the national housing standards with housing benefit. I absolutely agree with her that we need to cut out the financial incentive for rogue operators. I reassure her that I had a conversation yesterday with my opposite number in DWP and we are fully aligned with those objectives.

[Mr Betts]

I accept the Minister’s assurances that when producing the report relating to licensing, as detailed in clause 4(2), she will also publish an update on progress with national housing standards. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Licensing Regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 5, line 45, at end insert—

“(e) conditions relating to the assessment of the needs of persons who are residents or potential residents of supported exempt accommodation.”

This amendment sets out that assessing the needs of people who are residents or potential residents of supported exempt accommodation is a condition that may be attached to a licence.

Clause 5 stand part.

Amendment 5, in clause 6, page 6, line 29, leave out “statutory”.

Amendment 6, in clause 6, page 6, line 38, leave out “statutory”.

Amendment 7, in clause 6, page 6, line 40, leave out “statutory”.

Amendment 8, in clause 6, page 7, line 3, leave out “statutory”.

Amendment 9, in clause 6, page 7, line 4, leave out “the Local Government Association” and insert “local authorities in England”.

Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

The sort of people we are talking about will look at every particular avenue to escape the regulation. We need to make it clear that there is going to be a regulatory regime, that it is as common as possible throughout the country, and that there will be further details in regulation after the consultation has taken place. The licensing regime that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby referred to is very different; this one is specifically to deal with this particular challenge, in respect of which there is currently no regulation at all.

[Mr Betts]

I will speak to amendment 3 and raise a couple of other issues relating to the provisions under consideration.

On amendment 3, during our Select Committee inquiry one of the issues we heard from those concerned was how individuals got into exempt accommodation and how often people with very different needs—and sometimes very different but challenging behaviour—get put together in a completely inappropriate way. The worst examples were of women fleeing domestic violence being housed in the same building as people who have been perpetrators of that violence in the past. We heard about people trying to give up an addiction who were housed in the same building as people with a track record of dealing drugs. It was simply not appropriate; there is no control over who goes where. Gumtree and Facebook were regular means by which individuals accessed exempt accommodation. That was not satisfactory.

The standards to be enforced are set out in clause 5(3). Everyone agrees that licences should cover the standards of accommodation, as well as the use of the accommodation, the provision of care—or lack of it in some cases—and compliance with the national supported housing standards. The one thing the Bill is missing is the issue of access to that accommodation. That is why I put into amendment 3 words about,

“conditions relating to the assessment of the needs of persons who are residents or potential residents of supported exempt accommodation.”

We should take account of people’s needs and ensure that in future housing people with completely different and often conflicting needs and lifestyles—such as the perpetrators of domestic abuse being housed with victims of domestic abuse—simply cannot happen.

I accept that the wording may not be completely correct. I am hopeful that the Minister will accept the spirit of what I am trying to put forward, if not the precise wording. I look forward to what she has to say.

I have two other points. As the hon. Member for Harrow East said, of key importance are clauses 4 and 5, on licensing. Clause 2, on local supported housing strategies, places additional requirements on local councils. Will the Minister confirm that those requirements will be considered as new burdens, and that appropriate discussions will happen with the LGA and councils about that?

Finally, one of the most appalling things we heard about in our inquiry was the scams that take place. In the end, we could improve the accommodation for the same money that has been spent, had it been spent better. One of the examples we heard was about the council leader in West Devon. Quite rightly, we have heard a lot about Birmingham—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak was the first Member who came to me to say that this was a major problem that the Select Committee needed to look at—but we heard from the leader of West Devon about a portfolio of 12 properties that were sold to a special purpose vehicle for £6 million. On the same day, they were sold to an offshore investment company for £18 million. That is a £12 million profit for a portfolio of properties.

What is happening in many cases is that it is not property organisations that provide exempt accommodation. Organisations buy up these properties and rent them to an organisation—sometimes one they have created themselves as a subsidiary—that is not for profit. But that not-for-profit organisation is charged an enormous rent by the profit-making organisation, and that feeds through into the level of housing benefit that is eventually paid out on behalf of the occupiers of exempt accommodation. It is that sort of scam that needs to be stopped.

I would like to ask the Minister for some assurances, having looked at the wording in clause 5(5)(b) on

“removing or restricting an entitlement to housing benefit”

and limiting the rent. Will the Minister be looking to stop these sorts of scams by using the powers set out in the Bill so far?

[Felicity Buchan]

I will start with amendment 3, then move on to amendments 5 to 9, and then I will follow up on the points raised by hon. Members.

On amendment 3, the Government agree that it is vital that the needs of supported housing residents are properly assessed so that they get the help they need, and for supported housing to deliver the right outcomes. My original intention was to include the requirement for individual needs assessments in the national supported housing standards, as that will be a needs assessment and will cover the accommodation provided and the care and support package.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East has raised an interesting point, and I agree that putting the measure on the face of the Bill may have some merit. However, more detail is needed to flesh out the amendment. It particularly needs to spell out what the needs assessment covers in more precise language and how it interacts with care, support and provision. I would be happy to talk more about the matter with the hon. Gentleman, and I am happy to consider making changes to be introduced by the Government on Report. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw amendment 3.

I understand that amendments 5 to 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, are technical and are there to remove the Local Government Association from being named as a statutory consultee. The Government believe that “statutory” can remain on the face of the Bill in respect of amendments 5 to 8. I could go into more detail, but in the interests of time, and as this is a more technical matter, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendments to delete “statutory”, because we believe that removing it does not materially affect the duty being placed on the Secretary of State to consult the named organisations.

On amendment 9, I understand that the Local Government Association has requested this change. I am happy to support the removal of its name from the clause, but elsewhere in the Bill we have referred to “local housing authorities” and “social services authorities” and I am disinclined to introduce a third term. I propose to my hon. Friend that we work on an alternative, including local housing authorities or social services authorities, and that the Government will table that amendment on Report.

[The Chair]

Mr Betts, did you want to speak? I got the impression you did not want to get up.

[Mr Betts]

I was hoping to say one or two things and that the Minister might respond to my points about new burdens and benefits.

[Felicity Buchan]

I completely forgot; I was trying to rush through the amendments. My apologies.

First, on new burdens assessments, I confirm that an assessment will be made and that local authorities will get money for any new burdens. I anticipate that the new burdens will come about through setting up the strategies for the five-year period, and the initial set-up of the licensing scheme.

Secondly, I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield South East that we cannot allow the scams to continue. It is an absolute outrage that public money is going towards rogue landlords when it should be used more effectively to help vulnerable people in society. That dovetails with the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, that we need a linkage between housing benefit and the national supported housing standards. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East has my word that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions, will look to get rid of the scams. Clearly, it will take work and require a lot of deep analysis, but we are determined to look to make that linkage with the DWP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover in particular for her intervention. I give her the assurance that the intention is that the individuals involved will determine whether they are leaving a property under those circumstances. The key is to prevent the local authority from automatically refusing someone accommodation or assistance. The Bill dovetails with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which I piloted through some seven years ago now, to ensure that local authorities act appropriately when dealing with people who are homeless through no fault of their own. The whole point is to make it clear that they are not at fault by exercising this position. I thank the Minister for making clear her position on the planning issue. As I have said, my personal view is that we will require provision going forward, but let us establish the position.

On local licensing, we need to see a great deal of consistency across the country in the type of licensing policies that are implemented, so that national organisations are not having to cope with different licensing arrangements in different local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Sharing of information relating to supported exempt accommodation

[Mr Betts]

I beg to move amendment 4 in clause 10, page 8, line 26, at end insert—

“(8) If, at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the power in subsection (1) is yet to be exercised, the Secretary of State must publish, in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit, a report setting out the progress that has been made towards doing so.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to explain why they have not made provision about the sharing of information relating to supported exempt accommodation, if they have not done so within a year of Royal Assent of the Act.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 10 and 11 stand part.

[Mr Betts]

As I said when discussing a previous amendment, I am not doubting the Minister’s good intentions, but trying to make sure that we have her on the record. Clearly, the sharing of information, as in many of these areas, is really important. We know that rogue landlords and others get around rules because organisations and authorities have different information. They often cannot share with each other, let alone do not share with each other.

We have already had reference to the need for DWP and DLUHC to work closely together and make sure that information about the payment of benefits is there and available to be shared across the piece. All I am really asking here is that, if progress is not made in the way that the Minister clearly intends, could we have it on the record that a report will be made? Now, the Minister may well say that it is not usual to put such commitments on the record. I anticipate the speech that she is about to give, but can we at least have an assurance that the intention is that the report will be made? That would satisfy me and prevent me from having to push the amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

As with amendment 2, which was about a reporting requirement for housing standards, I am prepared to give a commitment in this Committee: if we are required to report on licensing regulations after 12 months, we will include an update on the progress on information sharing powers. I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow East that we need to be sensitive about the sharing of information, given the involvement of people such as domestic abuse survivors. Information about their current residence is very sensitive, so, again, consultation is key. We may have to exempt certain groups, but it is an important clause.

[Mr Betts]

I was hoping that the Minister would say something about reporting on progress, or how that might be done in due course.

[Felicity Buchan]

I did make a—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I feel like I am intruding on your private conversation. Sorry about having a formal procedure.

[Mr Betts]

May I finish the conversation?

[The Chair]

That was an intervention, so you still have the Floor.

[Mr Betts]

I confirm that I will not press my amendment to a vote, given the Minister’s assurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Meaning of “supported exempt accommodation”

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 13 and 14 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Minister for the information on consultation. This is a key area. The sort of people we are trying to drive out of business will use every and any loophole there is, so getting the exact wording right is vital. I accept completely what my hon. Friend has said about the consultation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Charter of Rights for residents of supported exempt accommodation

‘(1) A local housing authority in England must publish a Charter of Rights for residents of supported exempt accommodation (“Charter of Rights”).

(2) A Charter of Rights under subsection (1) must be published—

(a) within three months of the date on which this Act comes into force, and

(b) annually thereafter.

(3) A Charter of Rights under subsection (1) must contain—

(a) a statement of the rights of residents of supported exempt accommodation,

(b) a statement of the responsibilities of providers of supported exempt accommodation,

(c) information about support services for residents of supported exempted accommodation.

(4) In preparing a Charter, the local housing authority must consult—

(a) residents of supported exempt accommodation,

(b) providers of supported exempt accommodation, and

(c) civil society organisations.

(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations require a provider of supported exempt accommodation to—

(a) ensure that its staff are aware of the Charter of Rights published by the local housing authority,

(b) provide a copy of the Charter of Rights to every resident in the supported exempt accommodation it provides,

(c) have regard to the relevant Charter of Rights in exercising its functions.

(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’—(Kate Hollern.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Betts]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am moving the new clause on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern), who tabled it. I will not spend long on this, but I promised that I would move it so that the Minister could respond.

The intention of the new clause is simply to put the needs and rights of those resident in supported exempt accommodation at the heart of our debate in Committee. In the end, that is what we are trying to do: provide better accommodation for people who are often in desperate and real need. I will not press this to a vote, but I want the debate to be about how the Minister might think the issues raised in new clause 2—on having the rights of residents recognised formally—will be best addressed in the Bill.

[Felicity Buchan]

The new clause would require all local authorities in England to produce a charter of rights for supported housing residents. That seems to have significant risk of overlap with the national supported housing standards. For some of the reasons already outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, for local authorities each to produce their own charters would be unhelpful. We need consistency.

I make the point that while individual local authorities will decide whether they put in place a licensing regime, guidance will be issued to ensure consistency across the local authorities. We believe that the national housing standards will have a more consistent national approach, and an enforcement mechanism through licensing. We will therefore not support the new clause.

In answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, vulnerable people should clearly be at the heart of our concerns. At the moment, unfortunately, in certain situations rogue landlords are paid too much Government money, and the Government need value for money for the taxpayer. Simultaneously, vulnerable residents are not getting the support that they need. I give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that vulnerable residents will be a major focus of our consultation, which will be there to ensure that their needs are met through the national supported housing standards.

[Mr Betts]

I accept the Minister’s assurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone else.

The consultation on the NPPF before Christmas included quite a lot of flexibilities and potential for changes on the standard methodology that would be the basis for calculating the housing needs assessment, but the one area where there did not seem to be much flexibility was the urban uplift. Can the Minister justify the 35% uplift and set out how it has been calculated for each of the urban areas? Secondly, in cases such as that of Sheffield, where the urban uplift will force development on to greenfield sites and the green belt, will there be flexibility so that the extra amount from the urban uplift does not have to be applied where it can do real damage to local communities?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am sure other hon. Members have questions for me and other Ministers about the importance of infrastructure where we have development. Developments in urban areas have the benefit of that infrastructure, and it is important to build houses where there is infrastructure, so that uplift remains. However, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the green belt, and we are very conscious of the impact of building on green belt. There will be strengthened protections around that in the NPPF.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Clive Betts Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I was pleased to discuss these issues with my hon. Friend, and she is absolutely right that we must build on brownfield first. That is what local communities want. Through not just this Bill, but the consultation that we will bring forward on the national planning policy framework, we will identify how we can encourage local communities to do just that, with incentives through the infrastructure levy, for example, but through other measures too.

The way for a community and local representatives to shape their area’s future is through the local plan. At the moment, local plans are taking too long. The system is too onerous and councils feel that their local constraints are not properly taken into account. The result is that fewer than 40% of planning authorities have adopted a plan in the last five years. That means that, instead of developments being delivered coherently and in collaboration with communities, new houses are being imposed on local people through successive planning applications. Through the Bill and the consultation on the NPPF, which we intend to launch before Christmas, we will ensure that the needs of the community are taken into account when a plan is designed. Once the plan is in place, it will provide protection against other unwanted development.

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

I completely agree with the Minister about local plans. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee has said that on many occasions. May I just ask her, though, whether, in national terms, the Government are still committed to the 300,000 figure, as a target, an objective, an aspiration or whatever and, if they are, how will they achieve that figure unless the numbers agreed in local plans individually throughout the country add up to that 300,000?

[Lucy Frazer]

I can confirm that the Government are committed to building 300,000 homes because we do need those homes across the country and we need to ensure that young people can get on to the housing ladder. As I have just identified, communities are not agreeing local plans with those figures in them, so they are getting development where they do not want it; it is speculative development. What we will see through this measure is communities coming together with that starting point number, but seeing what works for their communities. When they engage properly on it, I think we will see that housing coming through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I will make a little progress, because I would like to address the Government amendments, which I will do in five categories. First, we are making it easier for people to develop where they want to develop, and where it delivers the best gain to the community and ensures that planned-for development actually happens. I will highlight five measures in this first category.

Through new clauses 49 to 59, we will pilot community land auctions. They will seek to increase the supply of land and aim to capture more land value more effectively to the benefit of the local community. Planning permission will not be granted automatically on sites allocated in the local plan through the auction process.

Through new clauses 60 and 69, we are allowing for street votes enabling residents to come together and propose additional development on their streets in line with their preferences—subject to meeting prescribed requirements—and vote on whether it should be given permission. In speaking to those new clauses, I would like to acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and the “Strong Suburbs” report by Policy Exchange.

We are making it easier for people to access suitable plots to build their own homes. We are building on the immense work of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon). We recognise the importance of self-build and custom housebuilding, and new clause 68 clarifies the duty on authorities to provide for plots for such homes in their planning decisions.

We will also seek to reduce barriers to smaller-scale developments that communities can easily get behind. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) has worked significantly on that area. I can confirm that our intention is to consult on changing national policy to encourage greater use of small sites, especially those that will deliver higher levels of affordable housing.

Importantly, we are ensuring that when permissions are given, developments can be built out quickly. New clauses 48 and 67 deal with that. Members across the House have been concerned about the rate at which development occurs once planning permission has been granted. It is wrong for developers simply to sit on planning permissions, because that increases the number of permissions that have to be granted and risks overdevelopment. The Bill introduces further steps to tackle the issue, including a requirement for developers to report on the rate at which they build, and allowing authorities to deny permission for further development on the same sites where the developers have failed to build out. All those measures will encourage development where people want it and where they have agreed to have it.

[Mr Betts]

I am not sure whether the Minister has looked at my amendments to her new clause 67. I agree with her about ensuring that builders build out at the required rate. However, some builders build out while ignoring the conditions for the planning permission put on them. I have a really bad case of that in my constituency with Avant Homes, which does not connect with local people, puts mud all over the roads and puts silt in the local brook—that sort of thing. Will she accept that local councils should be entitled to take account of failures to observe conditions when looking at future planning applications?

[Lucy Frazer]

We are looking at the issue carefully and will consult on further measures that we might be able to bring forward. I assure the hon. Gentleman that where there are reasonable avenues that we can explore, we will look closely at them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

I will try to draw on the work that the Select Committee has done in a number of reports over the years. First, I want to come back to the point I raised with the Minister about planning authorities having the right to take into account whether developers have fulfilled planning conditions in the past. That is a reasonable request and I am pleased that the Minister is going to consider it. I would be grateful if she could keep me updated on that. From the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) has mentioned the issue of ensuring that the change from 106 to an infrastructure levy does not reduce the number of affordable homes being built. Changing the present wording in the Bill, in which charging authorities must have regard to this, to make them ensure that it happens is a really important change that the Government need to think carefully about.

On the new clauses that I have tabled on skills and resources, one of the biggest challenges for planning authorities is the reduction in their spend and the reduction in the number of their planning officers. When the pressure is on to turn around individual planning applications, it means local plans get put on the back burner and do not get delivered on time. Also, as the Minister has said, too many local plans are out of date, and that needs to change. New clause 122 simply asks the Government to do a review and produce a plan for local authority planning staff and resources. We need a plan for staff and workforce in the health service and social care, and it is just as important in the long term that we have a similar approach to how we deliver our planning system. Currently that is not being done, and local authorities are struggling for those resources and that manpower.

I move on to the tricky issue of housing targets. In the end the Government cannot deliver their national target if they do not have a view about local targets. Their local targets have to add up to the national target if they are going to work. My new clause 123 says that the Government should produce a properly assessed housing need figure for each local area, that they should have discussions with local authorities about that in a transparent and open way and that, if the local authority agrees with that target, that should be the target set in the local plan. If the local council agrees with central Government, then put it in the local plan. If there is no agreement, the local authority should come forward with its own target, and that can be debated as part of the inquiry and the inspector will decide which is the appropriate way forward. One of the problems with local plans at present is that they often get bogged down, not with discussions about where housing should go—

[John Redwood]

rose—

[Mr Betts]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[John Redwood]

Does the hon. Member not understand that the whole point about more local determination is that the local community ultimately has to say, “This is all we can manage and we cannot be overridden”?

[Mr Betts]

Yes, I understand that, and that should be taken into account, as it can be at the local plan stage. The problem is that, if every local community decides that it does not want house building, we end up with not enough houses being built nationally. That is the simple reality of life. What I am saying is, yes, have the argument at the local plan stage, but all too often now, local plans get bogged down not with where the houses should be built or with the quality of the housing and the infrastructure, but with arguments over housing numbers, with developers and councils employing lawyers and consultants to argue with each other. That is what happens. If we can get agreement between the council and the Government and that is then accepted as the target for the way forward, that is a suitable way to do it, rather than the current endless debate and argument about numbers and calculations.

I want to mention one other amendment, on environmental outcomes. One of the biggest arguments at local level is often on the environmental impact of development. There is great concern among local communities about the environmental impact and the fact that, when developers commission an environmental report, it is commissioned by the developer and paid for by the developer. Communities are often suspicious that the report produces what the developer wants to hear, rather than what the actual environmental impact is for those communities. My amendment 105 is simple: in future, the developer should pay, but the local authority should commission. In that way, we make it absolutely clear that environmental outcome reports on individual developments are completely independent, and that local communities can trust them. That seems to be a sensible suggestion. I hope that the Minister will accept it and move it forward.

[Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 8 to 11 in my name and the names of other hon. Members.

As chair of the national parks all-party parliamentary group, and with a delightful corner of Dartmoor in my constituency, I am pleased to propose these new clauses. As we all know, national parks provide many benefits to nature, climate, heritage and culture. However, they are underpinned by an outdated legislative framework, which prevents them from realising their full potential for people, nature’s recovery, the 30x30 initiative and the Government’s net zero goals.

The Glover review of protected landscapes in 2019 highlighted these issues and put forward a package of recommendations to address them, the majority of which, to be fair, were accepted by the Government in their response to the review. But it is time that we implemented them to make best use of the rich natural heritage that we have been blessed with in our country. The new clauses that I have tabled could act as a vehicle to take forward the Glover review’s recommendations.

National parks play a key role in furthering the Government’s levelling-up mission, particularly in having a positive impact on our health, wellbeing and pride of place. Given this Bill’s focus on environmental matters and the planning system, it provides the perfect opportunity to implement the Glover recommendations to strengthen national parks as planning authorities. We must take this opportunity as these next few years are vital for meeting the commitment to protect 30% of England for nature by 2030, for halting the decline in species abundance and for making progress towards net zero.

New clause 8 delivers on proposal 1 in the Glover review to give national parks a renewed mission to recover biodiversity and nature. Natural England has found that only 26% of the protected habitat area inside national parks is in favourable condition, compared with 39% for England as a whole. The new clause seeks to address this disparity by recognising that we have a role not just in protecting national parks, but in actively strengthening and recovering them. It also delivers on proposal 7 of the Glover review, which proposed a stronger mission to connect all people with our national landscapes.

National parks have invaluable potential to improve people’s connection with nature and our levelling-up goals require that we should all enjoy equal access to nature across the country. During the lockdown, we learnt that, if we did not already know it. Natural England has shown that, if everyone has access to a green space, we could save the NHS more than £2 billion a year.

New clause 9 implements two recommendations from the Glover review to give national park authorities a new duty to address climate change and to strengthen the existing duty on public bodies to further national park purposes. The Government have already said that national park management plans should contain

“ambitious goals to increase carbon sequestration”

and

“set out their local response to climate adaptation”.

New clause 10 helps in setting out realistic goals for national park improvement. That would deliver other key elements of proposal 3 in the Glover review, that strengthened management plans should set clear priorities and actions for nature’s recovery and climate in national parks, and that legislation should give public bodies a responsibility to help prepare and implement management plans.

New clause 11 seeks to address Glover’s ambition to increase skills and diversity on national park authority boards. The Government’s response to Glover committed to measures to ensure that boards

“have more flexibility to balance diversity and expertise”

and proposes

“a more merit-based approach”.

So let us get on with it. The new clause would deliver this flexibility, removing the restrictive legislation referred to in the Government’s response, and ensure that boards are better equipped to deliver national park purposes. I am supported in these new clauses by the Better Planning Coalition, representing 27 organisations across the key sectors of the environment, housing, planning, and heritage.

I had a positive meeting last week with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who is responsible for national park policy. She is committed to working with national parks to bring about the bright new future that Glover anticipates and I hope that those on the Front Bench today will assist her in that vital mission.

--- Later in debate ---

I would like to touch on the critique made by the those on the Opposition Benches about the infrastructure levy. That critique is wide of the mark and altogether misses the point of the levy. For too long, there has been too little incentive for developers to marry their developments to good-quality infrastructure and new affordable housing. That is going to change with the infrastructure levy, which is a huge upgrade on the status quo and will allow all English charging authorities to adopt a more coherent and streamlined approach. It will bring to an end one of the principal issues behind the current shortages of affordable homes: the unequal negotiating positions between under-resourced local planning authorities and deep-pocketed developers.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am not going to give way; I will make substantial progress, because a lot of people have asked me questions. I want to give them commitments, and I will then be very happy to take interventions. I took all the interventions in opening the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) made an important point about exempting affordable housing from the infrastructure levy. I assure him that we intend for the full value of on-site affordable homes delivered by the levy to be offset by the total levy liability. That means that the affordable housing element of a development is not itself chargeable for the levy but that the scheme as a whole still contributes towards the infrastructure that may be needed to support it.

On infrastructure, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) spoke about paying money up front. The Bill already provides powers for levy regulations to make provision for payment on account and payment by instalment. It will also be possible for local authorities to borrow against future levy receipts. On top of all that, the infrastructure levy is a test-and-learn approach, so as we roll out it out going forward, we will improve it.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), raised points about the national development management policies. Those policies will cover the common issues already dealt with in national planning policy, such as green belt and areas at risk of flooding. That will reduce the burdens on local authorities by removing the need for those issues to be repeated in local plans.

I turn now from the infrastructure levy to issues relating to the environment. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) mentioned the Glover review. He will know that DEFRA is implementing several recommendations from that landscapes review and is also continuing to consider how best to implement others.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) mentioned hedgehogs and vulnerable species. We have discussed that issue, and as he knows, we are already taking steps to protect vulnerable species and prevent the destruction of habitats prior to any survey taking place. The legislative framework for biodiversity net gain already includes provisions to address that. I am very grateful for the conversations we have had, because as a result of the points he has brought to my attention we intend to look further at how we can strengthen that, and we will consider it further in the Lords.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) made a number of valid points, and he was right to highlight the importance of wild belts. Our local nature recovery strategies are at the centre of the Government’s approach to driving nature’s recovery. The Environment Act 2021 already obliges responsible authorities to map sites that could be of particular importance for nature’s recovery. Local authorities must have regard to the sites identified and the reasons behind their identification. That duty applies to all their planning functions. We will continue to look at that issue as we enable the preparation of local nature recovery strategies, which will begin across England soon.

Local support underpins our approach to changing planning policy on onshore wind development in England. I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland and for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for their thoughtful contributions on this matter. We will consult on onshore wind using a more localist approach, which will give local authorities more flexibility to respond to the views of their local communities.

We recognise that although some communities will want onshore wind, some may not. That is why important safeguards will be in place. Authorities will be able to identify appropriate locations for onshore wind that do not have a significant impact on precious visible amenity. Special consideration will have to be given to preserving the landscapes of, for example, the Somerset l evels, Romney Marsh and the magnificent fens of Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire and Norfolk.

Our valued landscapes—particularly national parks and areas of outstanding beauty—and important habitats such as sites of special scientific interest will continue to be protected. Councils will be in full control of what is developed within the local authority boundaries. A combination of robust national and local planning policies will ensure that communities are able to rebuff unwanted speculative development by appeal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I am always happy to hear recommendations from the Education Committee and work with the Department for Education. As I said, the Bill includes the ability for regulations to allow for what I think is being asked for. That is already in the Bill, and that might be the place to consider it.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

Council Tax

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Voter Identification Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 3 November, be approved.

This statutory instrument is a key part of how we implement the voter identification policy in the Elections Act 2022. This area was debated extensively during the passage of the Act earlier this year. Through this SI, we will be fulfilling a Government manifesto commitment to protect the integrity of our democracy by introducing identification to vote at polling stations. Gaps in our current legislation leave open the potential for someone to cast another vote at the polling station. Our priority is adopting legislation that ensures the public can have confidence in the integrity of our elections and certainty that their vote belongs to them, and them alone.

The introduction of a voter identification policy is the best solution to the problem. It has been long called for by the independent Electoral Commission, as well as by international organisations, such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which regularly monitors and reports on our national polls.

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

The Minister mentions the Electoral Commission. It issued a press statement at the weekend that expressed continued concerns about the delays in the Government getting their act together on this policy. It said it was not now sure that all the considerations it wanted taken into account to ensure the policy works properly could fully be met. That was in the press release. That comes alongside the Local Government Association and other council leaders expressing real concerns about whether this matter could be implemented properly and fairly and give people full access to voting in the May local elections. Does the Minister not just want to stop and think for a minute about the timing of the implementation, if not the policy itself?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We absolutely are thinking about how best to implement this policy. In the period while I have been in post, I have already met the Electoral Commission to talk about it. I have spoken to the Association of Electoral Administrators about it, and today I have spoken to the LGA about it. There are a range of views, but we are confident and focused on ensuring that this policy is implemented properly. We will continue to be so. On the key point, the Electoral Commission has been clear since as early as 2014 that

“we should move to a system where voters are required to produce identification at polling stations.”

This SI sets out further detail on the new processes that will be put in place to help us to implement this policy in practice. First, it sets out the updated polling station conduct rules for a range of elections and referendums, and details exactly how photographic identification documents will be checked and how data will be recorded by polling station staff. Secondly, it sets out a series of updates to election forms. As Members would expect, a number of existing forms, such as poll cards, have been updated to inform electors of the new requirement to show identification and of the types of documents that will be accepted.

On top of those changes, there are also new forms, such as those for polling station staff, which we will use to record data that will help our planned reviews of the policy in the future. Lastly, the policy sets out the details of the new electoral identity documents that can be obtained if someone does not already have an accepted document: the voter authority certificate and the anonymous elector document. These forms of photographic identification will be available to voters free of charge and will ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote will continue to have the opportunity to do so.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Clive Betts Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dehenna Davison]

It is a pleasure to be here for the next stage of this vital Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently set out his guiding principles for the Bill: beauty, infrastructure, democracy, environment and neighbourhoods—or, for acronym fans, BIDEN. We want to ensure that people across the country have the opportunity to live and work in beautiful places, supported by the right infrastructure, with strong locally accountable leadership and with better access to an improved environment, all rooted in thriving neighbourhoods of which they can be proud. Regrettably, though, there are areas of the country that are long neglected and that will require a concerted effort from us all. We have to put an end to the shameful waste of potential that has held so many of our constituents and our country back for so long.

This is why the ambitions set out in the levelling up White Paper are so crucial. If we are going to achieve our ambitions, we have to be focused. That is why the first part of the Bill creates a self-renewing national focus on this endeavour, through the setting of and reporting on missions to level up. These missions, with their clear, measurable objectives, will drive the action needed to reduce geographic disparities. One such mission is our vision for devolution across England. This is why the Bill creates a new model for devolution: the combined county authority. It also improves existing models thought the combined authority and county deal models, making devolution easier to achieve, extend and deepen.

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

One of the disappointments with this Bill is that, although it extends the principle of combined authorities to county areas, it does not actually transfer any new powers to local government as a whole that are not currently available in some authorities. Could the Minister point out one place in the Bill where a new power that is currently not devolved to local government will be devolved after the Bill is passed?

[Dehenna Davison]

The Chair of the Select Committee is a passionate campaigner on these issues. He will know that the Government are incredibly keen on empowering local areas to take on their own devolution deals, and that is why we are in the process of negotiating a large number of deals, including trailblazer deals with Greater Manchester and with the West Midlands, which I know Members right across the House are incredibly passionate about. We are looking at new powers and new funding to ensure that those devolution deals deliver for local people.

We are making it easier to achieve, to extend and to deepen devolution. At the same time, the Bill is making it easier for local authorities to regenerate their areas by providing them with new and improved tools for that purpose, including a new locally led model for urban development corporations, changes to ensure that any former development corporation can have conferred on it the functions most useful to its purpose, and improvement to the compulsory system to remove barriers so that authorities can assemble land, including brownfield land.

[Mr Betts]

Often, when compulsory purchase powers are used by local authorities, the value of the site they are purchasing is enhanced because they are using those powers and the owner of the site gets a “hope value” addition to what they receive. Would the Minister consider ensuring that, where a CPO has been put in place, no extra value is generated for the owner because the CPO itself is operated or because it is part of a regeneration site as a whole?

[Dehenna Davison]

I am happy to discuss that with the hon. Member in further detail following the debate today. It is certainly something that we are exploring behind the scenes with a view to taking action at a later date.

We are also looking at introducing discretion for local authorities to increase council tax on second homes and long-term empty homes, together with innovative high street rental auctions to tackle the damage that the gradual erosion of high street occupancy can cause.

Hon. Members will recall that the Government have already made provision for the full repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824. As the Secretary of State has said, the Vagrancy Act is outdated and has to go. This Bill was introduced initially with a placeholder clause, allowing for a replacement to the Act to be added. During the passage of the Bill, however, we have listened to the depth of feeling from Members across the House, and particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who has campaigned passionately on this issue. After working with Members across the House and having reflected on the right approach to the replacement legislation, I have tabled amendments to remove the placeholder clause. I can commit to the House that the Government will not bring forward any amendments to the Bill on this subject. We will, though, be working with the Home Office to make sure that the police and others have the tools they need to protect communities and ensure that people feel safe.

--- Later in debate ---

“restored power to local people.”––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2022; c. 907.]

[Mr Betts]

One of the problems with the Standards Board was that it was simply overwhelmed with complaints because residents were allowed to go to it at first instance, rather than appealing to it if their local authority did not deal properly with their case. Another problem was that parish council complaints were allowed under it. If those two issues had been addressed, the Standards Board could have dealt with a smaller number of cases, as an appeal system. It would have been a very different arrangement.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

My hon. Friend is correct. It is simply not in the interests of local people to have no mechanism at all to remove someone from office who is acting inappropriately. People in my area who have experienced the damage caused by our previous council leader and his supporters find offensive the suggestion that removing that level of accountability has somehow given them more of a voice or restored any power to them.

It is the greatest honour to serve our community, whether at council level or in Parliament. With that should come appropriate checks, balances and levels of accountability. The public need confidence in the system. They need to know that cases such as those that I have mentioned will never happen again. My new clause would ensure that.

Amendments 71 and 72 simply ask that the Government align the levelling-up missions with the United Nations sustainable development goal to end hunger and ensure access by all people—the poor and the vulnerable, including infants—to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round, and that it be measured by tracking the prevalence of undernourishment in the population and the prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity, based on the food insecurity experience scale. It is astonishing that a Bill that attempts to level up all parts of the UK does not mention hunger or food insecurity once, despite the Government acknowledging that it is not possible to level up the country without reducing the number of children going hungry and living in poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Grundy]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. The issue is that it does not matter what the actual circumstances are. Regardless of the facts on the ground, Mayors are incentivised by the nature of their role to stand up and say, “I am fighting for my area.” It encourages them to concoct fights with central Government, regardless of the issue. Then we end up with this position where there is constant strife between central Government and regional Mayors.

The problem with regional Mayors—a number of colleagues including my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) have made excellent points on this—is that it creates one single figure representing in some cases millions of people. A huge amount of power is vested in that individual, and that is deeply unhealthy.

We have heard the arguments for a sense of conformity across local government. I fear that that approach replicates the errors of the 1973 local government reforms, which created ever-larger local authorities. I remember—it was before I was born—that the campaign against it was, “Don’t vote for Mr R. E. Mote”, because the feeling was that the decision-making process was being removed ever further away from small communities to large, more remote places. As I am sure the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) knows, because we share a borough, the people of Leigh in the 1970s campaigned hard to avoid being merged into the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, and we lost, much to our immense regret. Other communities, such as Warrington, that campaigned successfully to stay out of Greater Manchester are much happier in Cheshire. I know that the good people of Bury successfully campaigned to stay out of the much larger Rochdale borough that was proposed. I fear that we are replicating the errors of the 1973 local government reforms on a county level or, indeed, a multi-county level with these regional Mayors.

I am sure you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there is not universal approval for the idea that everywhere should have Mayors. I spoke on “Sunday Politics North West” a number of months ago, and there was cross-party agreement that Lancashire—your home county, where your fine constituency of Ribble Valley lies—wanted a combined local authority, not a Mayor, and I fully support that. It had universal cross-party approval. My understanding is that other areas, such as Cheshire, are basically not entirely on board with the idea of a Mayor covering the entire county.

We have heard about Cornwall, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth made a compelling case. The only bit I did not agree with was where he said that Cornwall was a special case. I agreed with every word he said except that, because I believe that every part of England that does not want a mayoral devolution settlement should not be forced to have one. Furthermore, I also agree with Opposition Members who said that the best sort of levelling-up deal and funding should not be tied to having a Mayor. That is an obnoxious provision with which I profoundly disagree. I am afraid that on that particular issue, the Government will not have my support. I place my grave reservations about that measure on record.

In broad terms, I think the Bill is superb. A number of improvements have been made during its progress, and as I have said before, I thank Members who have come forward with amendments, and I thank the Minister for her response on how they will address that. As I have said, I have grave concerns about the path of devolution that we are taking as a Government and those issues need to be addressed. One size fits all will not work across the whole of England. We have to address the serious issues at the heart of trying to hammer square pegs into round holes.

The Minister referred to the Greater Manchester trailblazer devolution deal, just as the Chancellor did in the autumn statement, but I would appreciate it if she conveyed to the Secretary of State that I, and other Greater Manchester MPs, would very much like to be briefed on that. While the Government may have spoken to the Mayor of Greater Manchester, I am afraid that consultation on the issue with Greater Manchester colleagues has not been forthcoming—I see the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan, nodding. I assume that, like me, she has received very little consultation, or none.

Over the past few years, there has been an unfortunate tendency for Governments and Departments to seem far happier speaking to regional Mayors than to Members of this House. Members of the House should firmly resist the idea of being turned into powerless cyphers. In my view, a Mayor is a part of local government. They should have a lesser role in the governance of this nation than we do as Members of Parliament. To dilute the powers of Members of this House is fundamentally wrong.

After all, the vast majority of Mayors, other than in London, where there is a full Assembly, have scant accountability mechanisms—there is no Greater Manchester Assembly or Merseyside Assembly. Vesting such powers in individuals who negotiate directly with Government Departments, with scant input from Members of Parliament whose areas those mayoral authorities covers, is an unsustainable position. I understand that that is not the fault of the Minister, but I hope she will stress very firmly to the Secretary of State that the issue needs to be addressed, and addressed quickly.

I have covered everything I want to say. Overall, the core of this legislation is extremely sound. I commend the work of the Minister and her colleagues, as well that of colleagues who worked on the Bill before she took up her role. The tension between devolution and localism has come up today and, unless it is addressed, it will continue to come up as we discuss other pieces of legislation. The thing about devolution is that everything tends to get devolved after time and as MPs we get asked about everything. If we become shut out of the discussion and the process, that will present problems, regardless of party and across the House.

[Mr Betts]

We have before us something called a Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) who said that the Bill might be better if the planning elements had been taken out of it. The problem is that that would not have left much remaining, because essentially it is a planning Bill with bit of levelling up tacked on.

Indeed, as I said on Second Reading, the Bill has no new powers and there is no new money for levelling up and devolution. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee has launched an inquiry into the funding of devolution and levelling up. We have just started taking evidence and it will be interesting to see what conclusions are found, based on that evidence.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy) that we are diluting the powers of Members of Parliament. Hopefully, what we are doing is taking powers from central Government and handing them down to local government. I am in favour of that; we do not do nearly enough of that in this country. Indeed, as Members of Parliament we sometimes have to recognise that we do not have that much power. The Government get on with their business, and occasionally they tell us what they are doing.

[James Grundy]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment, but my concern is that, effectively, devolved Mayors look increasingly like not local government but an interim tier of Government—almost like the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.

[Mr Betts]

I will return to that, but I will first comment on the planning issues, which we will hopefully come back to at a future date. There are some challenges around housing targets and how we get to 300,000 if we do not have the building blocks at a local level. I am sure that will be an interesting discussion.

I am in favour of building on brownfield sites wherever possible, because this is about regenerating and bringing life back to many areas that have suffered incredible decline. I would say, however—the Government will have to listen at some point—that building on brownfield sites is more expensive. In my constituency, there are old industrial areas with chemicals in the ground and old derelict buildings that need clearing and improving before we begin to put something new in their place. That is an expense. At some point, the public purse will have to find the money for that to enable private sector development.

The other day, I sat almost entranced for half an hour by a briefing from Professor Philip McCann, who is now at the Alliance Manchester Business School but was previously at the University of Sheffield. His description of this country was staggering. He talked about the inequalities between regions in this country that make us different and more unequal than any other country in western Europe. He said that the inequalities between the richest parts of the south-east and the rest of the country are now wider than they were between East and West Germany at the time of reunification, which is staggering. The richest part of the country in the south-east has a degree of affluence, an income and gross value added levels that make it very similar to the richest parts of western Europe. The rest of the country, particularly northern areas, have productivity levels below those of the Czech Republic. It is staggering that that is where we have got to. One of the big challenges is to remove that inequality.

We are one of the most centralised and unequal countries, so the idea that central government is the way to level up is nonsense; we level up only by getting powers down to local communities. To come back to the point of the hon. Member for Leigh, with which I am not sure I totally agree, that probably means that we need something beyond the size of an individual local authority to enable the economic transfer of power on the scale that is necessary to make a difference—to attract overseas investment, to get the skills agenda going, to put the transport infrastructure in place, and to do all the things that we want to see. That is why combined authorities are probably a good way forward—I will put one or two conditions on that in a second—with or without an elected Mayor.

I was against elected Mayors, but I have come round to the view that they work. I would not impose them on an area, but it is right to have that option. Most areas will conclude from what they have seen elsewhere that having a focal point has helped combined authorities to establish themselves in the public mind. Perhaps it does mean that Ministers go to the Mayors, but so what? I would sooner have Ministers going to the Mayor of South Yorkshire than not coming at all, which was probably the case before.

I have some further caveats, because the Bill does not go far enough to address those fundamental inequalities. I will pick up on the point of the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson). I remember that, in his time on the Select Committee, we discussed such issues and basically agreed, and I agreed with him today. He said that the Government have a “gradualist approach” and that we have a “patchwork” that lacks clarity, and he is right.

We do not have a framework for devolution that covers the whole country so that we can see where the powers are going to sit. The Select Committee has asked for that and recently asked for it again. I challenged the then Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), when he came to give evidence to the Select Committee on why we could not see the operation of the subsidiarity that people used to argue for when we were in the European Union—the idea that things should be done at a local level unless there is a good reason for doing them at a national level. He said, “Oh that was a bit radical.” Well, it is a bit radical but it is probably right, and I hope that we can get to that position eventually or at least move towards it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dehenna Davison]

The hon. Member will be pleased to know that I have a note to return to that in a moment.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) raised some important points. We will come to many of their amendments on the second day of Report, when they will have an opportunity to speak on them in more detail. That will be coming soon. Both Members highlighted the passion around high streets, which, as we all know across the House, are vital to the heart and soul of any community. I am grateful to them for raising new clause 34 on compulsory purchase orders. The measures already in the Bill put it beyond doubt that local authorities have the power to use compulsory purchase for regeneration processes, but we are modernising the process to make it faster and more efficient.

As I announced in Committee, we are going even further by asking the Law Commission to undertake a review and consolidation of the law on compulsory purchase and compensation, to make it more accessible and easier to understand. As part of that work, the Law Commission will review existing CPO enabling powers to ensure that they are fit for purpose, and will make recommendations where appropriate. I do not believe that the new clause is necessary; however, I put on the record my gratitude to both Members for the incredibly constructive way that they have engaged on not just this part of the Bill but all of it, particularly regarding planning and housing matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said that I promised a visit. I am very much looking forward to visiting the Isle of Wight in due course.

[Mr Betts]

On the CPO powers, the Law Commission will not look at the valuations. Who will do that review work? Also, could the Minister set out very simply how the new arrangements will be simpler and quicker for local authorities to organise?

[Dehenna Davison]

One reason that we have asked the Law Commission to undertake the review is to ensure that we deliver in the most appropriate way, but I am happy to follow up separately with the hon. Member on hope value, because it is something that we will come to in the future.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and I had a great time in Committee during the few days that I was there in my role as Minister. It was always incredibly good natured, and I thank him for that. He spoke on new clause 46, as did the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), which is on business rates reform. As both hon. Members are no doubt aware, the Government recently conducted a business rates review, and the report was published at the time of the 2021 autumn Budget. A package of reforms announced then was worth £7 billion over five years. In the autumn statement incredibly recently, the Government went even further and announced a broad range of business rates measures worth an estimated additional £13.6 billion over the next five years, including freezing the multiplier. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also announced the extension of the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme, and a transitional relief scheme for the 2023 valuation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

The Local Government Association has calculated that councils are facing extra inflation costs of £2.5 billion this year and extra costs of £3.5 billion next year. If we look at the autumn statement, apart from social care there was no mention of any extra money whatsoever for local government. All that will come is a potential £0.6 billion if councils put up their council taxes by the 3%, aside from the social care precept. Surely £3.5 billion versus £0.6 billion means significant cuts to council services or the prospect, as the LGA has said, of some councils going bankrupt next year?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who brings a huge amount of experience from his Select Committee perspective, but the combination of what the Government have offered, which is a substantial increase in funds from the financial year 2023-24, plus a recognition that local councils can make decisions about their council tax bases, plus the usual efficiency savings that every large organisation should be making—[Interruption.] The Labour party seems to have a problem with local councils being as effective and efficient as they can, but I know most councils will respond to that challenge as they see fit.

Social Housing Standards

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

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

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

May I associate myself with the aims that the Secretary of State has set out in his statement? I think they will be supported across the House.

I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the Select Committee’s report, “The Regulation of Social Housing”, published in July—I gently remind him that the Department has not yet replied to it. In the report, we identified some social housing that was unfit for human habitation, and causing the sorts of health problems that tragically have been seen in this case. We identified problems with repair reporting, complaints handling, and a lack of proactive inspection of properties by housing providers and the social housing regulator. We put that in context and said

“some blame must attach to successive Governments for not investing enough in new homes, which has increased the sector’s reliance on outdated stock, and for not providing funding specifically for regeneration.”

Some of those are not individual repairs; there are failures of whole blocks and whole estates. I say to the Secretary of State: let us share the common objectives, and let us work together to get the money to ensure that those objectives can be realised.

[Michael Gove]

Of course, when the hon. Gentleman and his Committee published their report, I think I had just beforehand left office, and only relatively recently have I returned to office. But it is a powerful report, and the points he makes are fair and necessary. The concerns he raised about the state of repair and complaints handling have been articulated for many years, and the report brings very much to the front of mind the need to tackle those concerns urgently. His broader point about the need for investment in our housing stock, and our social housing stock overall, is very much a mission of my Department, not least in ensuring that Homes England, and others, can work with registered social landlords to ensure the regeneration of estates—including in Sheffield—that have been neglected for too long.