Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Clive Betts and Andrew Gwynne(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Local Government Finance
Debate between Clive Betts and Andrew Gwynne(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Gwynne
Of course that is the worry, because several councils are edging ever closer to the cliff edge, and the number that will drop over that cliff edge is very much dependent on the actions of this Government. If they honour their word and put resources into the local communities that need them most, hopefully we can avoid more Northamptonshires. However, if they continue along the lines that I fear they will, removing resources from the areas with the greatest need but the least ability to raise their own finances, I fear for the future of the local government sector.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am sure my hon. Friend has had a chance to read the Local Governance Research Unit’s excellent annual survey of local government finances, which shows that 10% of councils are worried that their resources will be insufficient to meet their statutory duties. We could reach that clear tipping point unless the Government act.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will touch on that report later in my speech, but it highlights the impact of 10 years of cuts to our local councils and public services at a time of rising demand, particularly for adult social care and children’s services—the expensive people-based services. Given that the councils with greatest social need and the worst health inequalities have a limited tax base to make up for any financial losses, the problem is that the so-called fair funding formula could be what tips them over the edge.
I know that the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), will stand up and pronounce that the finance settlement that we are set to agree next Wednesday shows that he is investing in local services, but he is a lone voice in saying so. That shows just how detached the Government are from the sector that they are here supposedly to represent, because the truth is that since 2015—just five years—local government funding across England has fallen by 32%.
Local Government and Social Care Funding
Debate between Clive Betts and Andrew Gwynne(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Gwynne
I will give way shortly, but I want to deal briefly with the issue of social care before I begin my concluding remarks.
The largest of the pressures on services remains the pressure on adult and children’s social care. According to the Local Government Association, adult social care services face a £1.5 billion funding gap next year, and £2 billion is needed for children’s services.
Given that the Cabinet are too interested in internal machinations, and given the absence of any leadership from the Prime Minister, we have yet to see the much promised social care Green Paper. In fact, this year’s April Fool revealed himself to be the Health Secretary after he missed his own new deadline of 1 April for the Green Paper—but no one was laughing, because that was the fifth missed deadline, following the summer of 2017, the end of 2017, the summer of 2018, and the autumn of 2018. Despite those delays, it seems that little progress has been made.
There is so much concern in the sector that last month 15 key organisations—including the LGA, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, and NHS organisations and charities—were forced to write to the Government expressing their concern that Brexit was becoming a distraction from any action to deal with the real crisis that is affecting the services on which people rely.
Mr Betts
There are clearly differences between the cuts made in different authorities, but there is a collective view in local government about the crisis in social care. When Councillor Paul Carter, chair of the County Councils Network and leader of Kent County Council, gave evidence to our Committee during our last inquiry into adult social care, he simply said, “We are approaching a cliff edge.” It is possible that some councils will not immediately follow Northamptonshire over that cliff edge, but it will not be long before they do unless there is a fundamental change in the funding of social care in this country.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me say to the Secretary of State that if he will not listen to the Chair of the Committee, he should listen to the leaders of his party’s own councils, who are saying precisely the same. There is a cliff edge, and no action that the Government have taken so far has done anything to remove it. It may have pulled a few councils back and given them a few years before they topple over, but unless we fundamentally change the Government’s approach to social care services, we will not be able to solve the crisis in local government.
For the first time in England, we have seen a standard £2,000 tax bill introduced by a Conservative council. We have also seen the costs of the failures of this Tory Government. For instance, the cost of the failure of Tory-controlled Northamptonshire County Council has been pushed on to local people because the Secretary of State allowed it to raise its tax above normal limits as it grapples with bankruptcy. Local people are paying the price of Tory mismanagement: that is what happens when the Tories do not fund local government and are in charge of the town hall.
Austerity is not over, but across the country Labour councils and councillors are showing that it does not have to be this way. Under the shadow of the present Government, Labour councillors are innovating, standing up against austerity, and protecting local services. They are the torch bearers for the new politics that we will see with the next Labour Government. On 2 May, there will be a clear choice: continued austerity with the Tories, or proper investment, fairness and a real change, with Labour councils making a real difference to the communities they represent.
We need a Labour Government because we need a Government who are committed to funding children’s services, funding adult services, funding neighbourhood services, rebuilding our communities from the grass roots up, putting pride back into civic professions, and encouraging our communities to grow and prosper. We will rebuild this country, for the many and not the few. I commend the motion to the House.
Grenfell Tower Fire Inquiry
Debate between Clive Betts and Andrew Gwynne(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Opposition welcome today’s debate, and I begin by thanking colleagues who have contributed, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Eltham (Clive Efford), for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad), who speaks with so much knowledge and first-hand experience of the dreadful tragedy and its aftermath, for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), for Westminster North (Ms Buck), for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for Derby North (Chris Williamson), and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury).
We heard brilliant and powerful maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), and for Leigh (Jo Platt). All of them showed passion and dedication. They will be doughty champions for their constituents and their constituencies in this place, and I welcome each and every one of them.
From other parts of the House, we heard from the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) and the hon. Members for Southend West (Sir David Amess), for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), and for Redditch (Rachel Maclean).
There can be little dispute that the shock that we all felt following this tragedy has not subsided in the weeks that followed it. While the need for immediate answers is clear, we welcome the Grenfell inquiry’s decision yesterday to extend the consultation period by two weeks to provide those affected with more time to respond. It is understandable that the immediate focus of the response to this tragedy has been on meeting the needs of the bereaved and the survivors, but may I urge the Government for action with regard to the neighbours and community members around Grenfell tower? We have been speaking to some of the volunteers, and they have expressed concern at the lack of access to support for the many nearby residents. These people saw the disaster develop close at hand, but some have not accessed support, either because they have not been directly approached, or because of a reluctance to do so when local services are so overwhelmed.
I pay tribute to the fire service, the police, and the community, who pulled together to assist when statutory authorities frankly failed. That is why I ask the Government to ensure that support is available to those who are volunteering after this disaster. Some volunteers are now doing a job as part of the disaster victim identification team that many of us could not imagine.
As the tragedy unfolded on 14 June, I watched an interview on one of the news channels with a resident whose property overlooked the tower. He spoke about seeing the building on fire from his kitchen, and seeing children calling for help from the windows. So many have been affected by this tragedy. We need to make sure that adequate support is in place for residents, those living in the area, those dealing with the aftermath, and the children who survived and saw things that no child should ever have to see. I want an assurance from the Government that they will ensure that those people are given every support that they need.
Similarly, residents in tower blocks throughout the UK need assurances that their homes are safe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was clear about where the Government need to improve. Four weeks on from this tragedy, we still need the Government to show some leadership, because concerns run deep, and run beyond the neighbourhood surrounding Grenfell. We heard today that Members across this House have been contacted by concerned constituents living in the 4,000 other tower blocks across the country. Ministers still cannot say how many of these tower blocks they consider to be safe. In the last update given by Ministers, of the 530 tower blocks covered in aluminium composite material that have been the focus of the testing process, only 200 had actually had material tested.
We have heard that housing associations whose residents have sought assurances that their non-ACM clad buildings are safe—I have three such buildings in my constituency—have been told that the Government are refusing to check their cladding due to the current narrow focus of the testing. That is just not good enough.
Where buildings have failed safety tests, including in Salford, local authorities are unclear on how to proceed, because guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government is unclear on whether cladding that fails combustibility tests requires removal, and on whether, if it does fail those tests, leaving a building unclad and open to the elements is actually a worse fire situation than leaving the cladding on.
On 3 July, the Secretary of State told the House that the panels that failed recent testing
“are ‘unlikely to be compliant’ with the limited combustibility requirement of the building regulations”.—[Official Report, 3 July 2017; Vol. 626, c. 913.]
However, as per the explanatory note referenced by the Secretary of State, it may be possible for individual materials that do not meet limited combustibility definitions to be used where they form part of a system that does meet the requirements.
There are two ways to meet that requirement. One is to ensure that each individual component of a wall meets the criteria for limited combustibility, which is the test currently used by the Department, and the other is to ensure that the façade system meets the acceptance criteria of BR 135, following the method in BS 8414. But under the current regulatory system, even cladding that fails tests for limited combustibility can be used in developments as long as the criteria in BR 135 are met. Despite the Chancellor’s misinformed comments, the cladding used in the project at Grenfell Tower was not banned in the UK. If we are to prevent such a tragedy from happening again, it is important that we get these things right.
The fire service was among the first at the scene at Grenfell. The least we can do is ensure that it plays an important role in the forthcoming inquiry, and that its expertise is not just valued but taken on board and acted on. Following the Grenfell Tower fire, many local authorities have been undertaking safety checks and installing fire prevention systems. Many councils have gone beyond just the tower blocks by looking at public buildings such as schools and hospitals.
Some local authorities began removing cladding from their buildings after it failed the recent tests, but as I have explained, the building regulations do not necessarily reflect the documentation issued by the Department. Some housing providers have since stopped removing cladding because of that lack of direction; they do not know how, and with what materials, the cladding should be replaced. Residents are worried that inaction is leaving them vulnerable, yet without guidance, local authorities are unsure how best to act. Leadership on this issue has not been forthcoming from the Secretary of State, who has instead passed the buck to landlords, in conjunction with fire services, so that they take decisions on building safety.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, noted in his opening remarks, this is not the first time that the Government have failed to take responsibility for safety. He referred to the words of the former Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who said it was the responsibility of the fire industry, rather than the Government, to encourage the installation of sprinkler systems.
Members on both sides of the House, including the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire and the hon. Member for Southend West, have called for the retrofitting of sprinklers. I urge the Minister to consult the all-party parliamentary fire safety rescue group on that, because there is an urgent need to ensure that all buildings—public buildings and housing—are fire-safe.
I commend Labour-led Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, one of two councils covering my constituency, on agreeing to retrofit sprinklers in all Stockport Homes tower blocks. That is down to the work of Councillor Sheila Bailey in particular. Similar commitments have been made by other local authorities of all political persuasions.
Ministers need to clarify an important matter. They have not given any real commitment to local authorities. The First Secretary of State has announced that the Government are prepared to fund these measures only in certain circumstances. That basically means that already cash-strapped local authorities will have to either find more money that they just do not have or cut services elsewhere. Unless the Government explain how they will make resources available to local authorities to do those works, and what “stepping in” means in practical terms, that is a bit of an empty promise.
Mr Betts
I raised that issue in the debate. I asked the Secretary of State in a written question to set out the criteria against which applications for additional funding will be assessed. The answer I got was
“that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period.”
That is a rather empty answer, is it not, to a very pressing problem?
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely, and I am afraid it speaks volumes. Unless the Minister, in summing up, can explain how local authorities are going to get that resource, the fact is that councils in my hon. Friend’s constituency and many others across this country will not have the financial means to address the issue. They need certainty that they will receive some recompense from central Government.
I want to turn quickly to governance. We heard today that the taskforce sent in to advise Kensington and Chelsea Council lacked the powers necessary to co-ordinate what needed to be done following this disaster, and about the deficit in local leadership. As the First Secretary of State has said, the taskforce can advise, but it cannot act. Surely that is an issue of real concern, because Kensington and Chelsea Council just was not up to the job of dealing with a disaster of this magnitude. The way in which it responded was, quite frankly, not acceptable in any sense of the term. There is very real concern about not only how the local authority handled the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, but its shortcomings over the following days and weeks.
Having spoken to those offering support to survivors, I understand that there are very real concerns that the uptake of financial support is still not what it should be. I appreciate that Ministers have given assurances that benefits will not be affected, but the lack of trust that some continue to have in their elected representatives locally has led to a number refusing support. That needs to be addressed at a local level.
On the council’s ability to deal with this type of emergency, it has emerged that there are serious shortcomings in its contingency planning and management, yet the Government have not been good enough at the job of intervening. People are still in need of support services and rehousing. It appears that the Government have acknowledged the council’s serious failings, because they sent in a taskforce, but at this crucial time, they have left in charge those who failed the residents in the first place. Today, we heard the new leader of the council state that she has never before been inside a high-rise council block. What a farce!
On 1 July, Labour called for commissioners to be sent in to take control of the situation, warning that trust among the local community will not be rebuilt by a leader, deputy leader or other politicians unless there is a major shake-up in governance. I repeat the call that we made on 1 July: local people want to know that the Government are taking control; that there will be a shake-up in the management and governance of Kensington and Chelsea Council; and that the situation will be closely monitored and managed directly by commissioners who are answerable to the Secretary of State and to Parliament, until the local authority has the necessary capacity, is fit for purpose, and is fit to govern in the interests of all the residents of Kensington and Chelsea.
Until we can guarantee that all those who lost their homes are in secure accommodation, until support is available for all who need it, and until the public are again able to trust the elected representatives in Kensington and Chelsea Council, we will repeat our call for commissioners to take over the running of the council. Changes need to be made to laws, to regulations and in the governance of the council, and they must be made based on the evidence we have now, as well as on the additional evidence from the inquiry. We urge the Government to make this happen swiftly; if they do, they will have our support.
Cities and Local Government Devolution [Lords] Bill
Debate between Clive Betts and Andrew Gwynne(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Betts
I would not want to second guess the motives of the Secretary of State, so I will use my own arguments to resist what the Government are trying to do.
Apart from the inconsistency of approach, the proposals are confusing. That takes me back to the point I made in my intervention on the Minister. In the Sheffield city region the economic powers, which are important and cover skills, economic development and the infrastructure associated with it, are to be devolved to the combined authority, which will cover nine districts—four metropolitan and five non-metropolitan districts. But as I understand it from the deal, the mayor will have responsibility for just transport. So the mayor is to run transport, and the combined authority is to run economic development. The public want some consistency of approach on these matters. I do not believe that the combined authority, the district, would naturally have come forward with a proposal that broke up the responsibilities in this way.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The difference between his deal and the Greater Manchester deal is that the Greater Manchester deal is within a single metropolitan county, so functions such as police and eventually fire and rescue can also be devolved to the Mayor’s office.
Mr Betts
There is a big difference in the Manchester case. I am not arguing that Manchester should have a mayor imposed on it. If Manchester wants that, that is a matter for it, but it is different. In Sheffield we have hybrid devolution, with transport going to the mayor, but the mayor is not going to cover the nine districts. The mayor will cover only four districts—the old south Yorkshire districts—so how are people to understand the devolution deal, which has one set of governance arrangements for economic powers and skills, and another set of governance arrangements for transport, where one set of governance arrangements covers four authorities, whereas the other set covers nine?
The whole purpose of combined authorities is to bring local authorities together on a voluntary basis to cover a travel to work area—the natural economic entity—yet transport, the mayor and the associated powers will not cover the whole travel to work area of Sheffield. This is a real dog’s dinner. It is not going to work, and it is certainly not going to be understood by the public.
That leads me on to my second point. There is a problem with mayoral imposition, which in Sheffield’s case will not cover all five areas. Other districts can choose to join the arrangements for mayors if they wish. My understanding—I may be wrong—is that the districts of north Derbyshire and north Nottinghamshire, which are part of the Sheffield city region, are going to join the combined authority, which they are part of, for the economic powers. However, for transport powers to be devolved to those areas through a mayor, those districts will not merely have to agree, but they will have to get the county, which is the transport authority, or two counties, to agree as well. Does the county have a veto over what happens to devolution in the Sheffield city region?
This is not workable. At the same time as the Sheffield city region has a mayoral possibility, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire are looking at having a joint combined authority, which would have a mayor as well. As I understand it, the mayor can exist for the districts of north Derbyshire and north Nottinghamshire only if those districts agree to the county mayor for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire being created. So they have a veto over that. At some stage, surely, Ministers have to take some responsibility for coming forward with proposals to sort out this mess, or it will stop devolution working effectively in these areas.
Mr Betts
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said about the need for a wider constitutional settlement. That was apposite, and at some point we will have to address those issues. I agree with his points about subsidiarity and taking that below the level of an individual local authority, and about encouraging the process down.
Fiscal devolution is a challenge, and Members have reflected different perspectives from different parts of the country. It is a challenge, but not one that we should duck. I am Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, on which the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) sat in the previous Parliament. He made important and valuable contributions to our report. We found a way to take on board proposals from the London Finance Commission about the wider devolution of property taxes, while recognising the need to protect areas that will perhaps struggle to raise business rates and other property taxes easily, or to get back money from areas that simply watch property prices rise and receive enormous windfalls. We must have balance in the system.
The Committee has begun an inquiry into the workings of devolution and the Bill, but since then the Chancellor has made his announcement about the full localisation of business rates. The Committee will want to come back and look at how that will be done. I think most Members would support the principle behind such a move, but how will we implement it to ensure protection for poorer areas? How will we devolve more powers to local government to take account of the extra money made available as part of that process?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is right to say that the Select Committee must consider business rates retention in detail. One possible solution for devolved city regions might be the pooling and sharing of business rates. For example, parts of Greater Manchester are key drivers of economic growth, and that wealth should be spread across the whole conurbation for the benefit of all.
Mr Betts
My hon. Friend is right, and the Committee made that recommendation in the previous Parliament. It is a way that we can devolve the redistribution process to more local areas. That does not work everywhere, but it would probably work well in areas such as Manchester that have a spread of different local authorities
Devolution in England
Debate between Clive Betts and Andrew Gwynne
Mr Betts
Absolutely. The essence of our recommendations is that there should be a framework—a pathway—by which all areas of the country could achieve devolved powers. Some will probably go more quickly than others, but there is no reason for there to be a barrier to all areas joining in. That is very much in the spirit of the work of the Local Government Finance Commission, which has just been published by the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. It has slightly different arrangements, although the essence is that, while some authorities will go quicker than others, they will all get there eventually.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I am a firm believer in the decentralisation of power, but does my hon. Friend recognise that decentralisation is not an end in itself and that we need to have accountability alongside it? Does he share my concerns that, under the Greater Manchester proposals, nobody in Greater Manchester other than the council leaders has been asked about what model of decentralisation they would like to see?
Mr Betts
We looked at that issue and it is clear that there have to be proper governance arrangements if local authorities are to have not just large amounts of extra spending to control, but greater tax-raising powers, as we also recommend. We looked specifically at the combined authorities, which is the issue my hon. Friend refers to, and we have said that different government arrangements might be suitable in different areas. A directly elected mayor might be appropriate in some areas and a strengthened Public Accounts Committee could scrutinise the work of the executive of the combined authorities. In other areas an indirectly elected mayor might be appropriate, as is the case in Bologna and other places in the world. There are different models available, but no single one is necessarily the right one for every area. We should not say that devolution cannot happen until an area has a particular model of governance in place, but it is clearly right that they should get a proper model in place.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Clive Betts and Andrew Gwynne(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Betts
I could not have put it better myself; that is precisely right—there will be a perverse incentive. If a council gets the older people who are entitled to claim to do so in greater numbers, other council services will be cut, council tax might increase at some point or, if no more money is spent on the scheme, the benefits of people who are not pensioners will be affected. That is precisely the point.
The problem is not with the Government’s attempt to rebadge the scheme or to localise it, but with the 10% reduction at the beginning, all in one go, and the way in which the Government have framed the restrictions on the extent to which local authorities can implement the reduction. Local authorities can always find extra money to increase the cost of the scheme, but is the Minister really suggesting that it will be possible for any local authority in the current circumstances to find extra resources at a time when services all round are being cut for reasons we all know about?
The 10% restriction or cut in the available Government funding comes in from day one in 2013. Pensioners are going to be protected, and no one in the Opposition is going to argue about protecting pensioners because we want to increase the number of pensioners taking up their entitlements, but that obviously means that the 10% reduction will fall on other people who claim the reduction. That is self-evident. I asked the Minister about this yesterday, because the Local Government Association has kindly put forward the information that about half those claiming the benefit are pensioners, which means that half are not pensioners. So if pensioners are protected, that means a reduction of about 20% for other claimants, does it not?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Is it not worrying that if one section of society is to be prioritised, another, very needy, section is to be penalised, and does not that place councils in the very tough position of deciding who are the deserving poor and who are not?
Mr Betts
Absolutely. We are told that vulnerable people—perhaps people on very low incomes with children—are going to be protected, or have to be protected, by councils under the scheme, but are they going to be or not? Are the Government going to insist on that? We are not quite sure. We are told that local authorities have to take account of the tapers under universal credit, but what does that mean? Are they obliged to respect completely the 65% taper element within universal credit or not? If so, will that mean that a smaller and smaller number of people will have the totality of the cuts in benefits imposed on them? That is the reality. Will the Government explain what they think is going to happen?