Financial Distress in Local Authorities

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you very much for your statement, Mr Betts. I call Bob Blackman. I intend to call the Front Benchers at the end, if everybody is happy with that.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for what he said. Clearly, one problem is that adult social services, children’s social services and homelessness services are all demand led, so it is very difficult for a local authority to predict the number of people involved and how much money will be required. Does he agree that what the Government and the Department need to look at now is how we can enable local authorities to have a pool of money nationally that could be used by a particular local authority when these demand-led services have dramatically increased the burden on it?

[Mr Betts]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—I call him my Select Committee Friend—because he has been part of all these debates and always the Committee report was unanimous. He is absolutely right: we have to find a way of funding social care in the specific parts and for the general social care issues. Council tax simply cannot meet that burden; we cannot keep putting council tax up to cover it. That leads on to the additional challenge that most people do not receive social care and what they are seeing every year is their council tax going up but the services they do get—the libraries, parks, buses and road sweeping—being reduced. They are paying more and getting less, and that is not sustainable in the long term.

Departmental Response Times

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

Yes. The Committee works on a cross-party basis and our report on the PRS was produced unanimously. We have raised our concerns about the delayed response in person with Ministers at our hearings, and we have also written to Ministers, but still we have not had a response.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I take no pleasure in rising on the subject of the statement either. I have had the opportunity to serve on the Committee and its predecessors for the last 13 years, since I have been in Parliament, and over that period of time we have worked very hard, on a cross-party basis, to make sure our recommendations are agreed on a cross-party basis.

Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that the Government’s response to the Committee’s report on exempt accommodation was some six months late? Given that I was promoting a private Member’s Bill, which has now become an Act of Parliament, not having a response from the Government was hardly helpful in guiding the House or the House of Lords. Will he confirm that position and that many of the recommendations that the Committee has made would have helped the Government to deliver much better service for all our constituents?

Adult Social Care

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

That is a great point from my hon. Friend. We recognise that that care is generally provided with a lot of love and commitment from people who do it, but very often they will reach breaking point without the additional support from local authorities, such as respite care. Families say to me, “If only I could just have a week where I could go away and relax a bit, knowing the person I am caring for is being looked after, that would make an enormous difference.” Sometimes that does not exist anymore, so that is an important point.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a very clear explanation of local government funding, and I would expect nothing less from the Chair of the Select Committee. However, there is another issue he has not yet covered in his speech, and I am not sure whether he plans to: does he agree that another problem is the other source of income for local government, non-domestic or business rates? I well remember a certain hon. Lady from the Opposition saying in the Select Committee that we are going to get to a position where the non-domestic rates are paying for social care. Is that the right way to utilise business rates?

[Mr Betts]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and he has been through some of those discussions on the Select Committee—I think the County Councils Network also made that point strongly to us—so he is absolutely right. I was not going to go too much into the long-term reforms of local government funding, but as a Committee we have said that there is a real challenge with the reforms of both council tax funding and business rates, and we have produced reports on that. There is not a clear linkage between how much money a council might get in from business or non-domestic rates and how much demand for social care is going up. Demand for social care is going up that much faster and the tax base needs to be adapted to recognise that, so his point is an important one.

To some extent, that demand is being met by tightening the rules on exemptions. More and more people who would have got social care in the past do not get it now. Age UK says it is 1.5 million—an estimate, but probably not an unreasonable one. There is also less prevention work going on, which means that people who have small needs to help them live in their homes do not get those needs addressed until they become serious needs. Then they end up in hospital, which is much more expensive and a much worse outcome for the people concerned. It results in more pressure on the NHS, more cost and a less good service.

On the other hand, there is the pay and conditions for care staff. People doing the same job in care get less money than people in the NHS. That is true of nurses, for example, where we can make direct comparisons. We know that up to half of care staff tend to leave within a year, and many are on zero-hours contracts. There have been repeated requests for a long-term workforce plan. There has rightly been a request for a long-term plan for the health workforce, but we need one for the social care workforce as well. I think that the Chancellor, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), when he chaired the Health and Social Care Committee, argued that case very strongly, and quite rightly.

There is a question of pay: these are skilled people with a real commitment that should be recognised, and not at a minimum pay level. There should be a system with proper career progression and training, so that people can realise the benefits of their skills and commitments. There is evidence that the care market is broken, that many care providers have gone out of business or struggled over the years and that the level of fees in some areas probably does not reflect their costs.

Then, of course, we have the issue of people having to give up their homes to pay for their care costs. It is a complete lottery. If in the end someone finishes the last years of their life with dementia, much of the value of their home will go to pay for their care. If they finish their life by having a heart attack and dying, they do not pay anything towards their care. That is an unfair system and it needs to be addressed. The Dilnot reforms have been around for some time. They have been nearly started and then not started, and nearly started again and not started; I will refer in a couple of minutes to how we might take things forward.

How might we change things to improve them, then? This debate is not just about making complaints; it is about providing solutions. I accept that, and that is what the Select Committee is trying to do. One suggested solution is, “Well, just amalgamate it—let’s have one big service. Put it all in the NHS and it’ll all be all right.” I think most would say that the NHS has enough challenges at present without taking on another great challenge on top. What we do not need is another mass reorganisation affecting both health and social care, the cost of which would probably be a lot more than the cost of doing things any other way.

We should also remember that most people receiving care receive it not in a hospital or even in a care home, but in their own homes. The link that councils can make between their home service, providing adaptations and the like, and care, is key in that regard. The other thing I would say is that we cannot carry on relying on short-term fixes, with one-off grants here, one-off grants there, and a council tax system that is regressive and not fit for purpose, let alone for long-term funding of social care—or, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said a few minutes ago, business rates, which bear little relation to demand for social care either.

I go back to the 2018 joint report with the Health and Social Care Committee, in which we said two things. We did a lot of work with the focus group on this question and spent a lot of time on weekends away in a hotel in Birmingham. What people said was, “If we knew the money was going to social care, we would happily pay more.” That is what happens in Germany and Japan, two countries that we looked at. We said, “Let’s have a social care premium.” Immediately, it might be said that that is not dissimilar to the Government’s proposed increase in national insurance rates. The difference was that, at the time, we said that we had to target any payments. There will be different ways of doing this, I accept, but there has to be a way of raising extra money for social care that neither comes from the current local government system, nor takes care out of local government.

We said that there should be a social care premium as a percentage of income, but that we would raise the bottom level so that the poorest people would not pay. We would increase the top level in the way that national insurance does not, so that people on the highest incomes would continue to pay, and we would include unearned income and higher-level private pensions, but we would also exclude the under-40s, as they do in Japan. We felt that people under 40 were probably getting the worst of the deal after the financial crash in terms of the impact on their finances. That is how we thought we could raise the funds, and it was agreed by the 22 members of the two Select Committees as a way forward.

What is sometimes missed, and what we also suggested, is that we have to deal with the issue of people’s homes being sold. I have to say to the Government that their arrangements to try to implement Dilnot are complicated and unfair. People may not pay until their assets reach a minimum level, but—and I have never heard a Minister address this point—the Government cap the amount that people pay in such a way that people with lower value houses pay a bigger percentage of their homes than people with the highest value houses.

Someone who has a home worth half a million pounds pays a much smaller percentage than someone who has a home worth £100,000. That is not fair, so our Select Committee said that a percentage should just be taken from everyone’s estate. Then, the people with the most would pay the most, and the measure would not be confined to people who need care. That removes the unfairness of people with dementia paying all or most of the value of their home while those who do not have dementia paying nothing. With a small amount of inheritance tax, or another way of assessing people’s estates, we could raise a lot of money and deal absolutely with the problem of people having to give up most of their home to pay for their care costs. That is certainly worth a look.

We need to find a long-term solution to the problem. It is not going to go away, is it? The number of elderly people will continue to grow; the number of people with learning disabilities will continue, quite rightly, to require more from our services. Councils said that the funding gap was £7 billion last year, but they have also said—the Health and Social Care Committee has addressed this, and other important think-tanks have confirmed it—that if we are to deal with the combination of problems, including the immediate funding gap, the need to address eligibility criteria and bring more people back into the social care system, the challenge to local government finance, and the need for a long-term workforce plan, the gap is probably about £14 billion. That is a big sum of money, and we cannot find it in the existing local government finance system, which cannot cope as it is.

If we carry on as we are, and demand keeps increasing with no improvements to eligibility or workforce pay, there will be a consistent further increase in the pressures on other local government services. There will be bigger cuts to libraries, buses, planning, street cleaning and so on. The public, in the end, will simply not stand for that. I say to the Minister: please, let us just have a bit of long-term thinking and recognise that this is a serious problem that will not go away. Local government funding, as it exists at present, cannot take the strain any longer. We need an alternative source of revenue, we need to keep social care linked in to the rest of local government services, and we need, of course, to develop better contacts with the health service. Money to deal with the problem of people sat in hospital beds when they need to be in social care is welcome, but all that is short-term thinking.

I say to the Minister—and, to be non-partisan, to the Labour Front Benchers—where is our plan for long-term care? Where is our recognition of the funding needs? How will we bring about change? Could we, as the Joint Committee said, just possibly get a bit of cross-party thinking on this for the future? Whatever solution we come up with, we need one that will work for the long term, not just for half a Parliament or for one Parliament.

Private Rented Sector

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Thursday 9th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

Yes, because it is a recommendation in our report. Wherever the reply to our report comes from—I presume it will come from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, but no doubt it will come after consultation with other Ministers—the situation is one that the Committee will follow through. In the end, if there are so many properties in an area that are offered for a rent that someone who is working on a relatively low income cannot afford, and the housing allowance does not cover it, that is a problem that we simply must address. We cannot go on ignoring it, and that is what the Committee says. We ought to get back to the previous 30% decile position, and look at whether even that is satisfactory in some areas to make housing genuinely affordable.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

In considering the report, one issue of concern is inadvertent consequences. Just abolishing section 21 evictions will almost certainly lead to more tenants being evicted under section 8, and with a county court judgment against them they will not be able to get another tenancy. Does the hon. Member agree, therefore, that when the Government finally come out with the long promised renters reform Bill, it is important that it is not only comprehensive but has pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee, to enable the Government to get it absolutely right?

Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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.

--- 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.

Exempt Accommodation

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Thursday 27th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, though perhaps it would be better addressed to Ministers, rather than the Committee. I do not know why the Government do not want to act more quickly. I take the point about not putting off good providers, but we have talked about a light-touch registration scheme for the good providers. We are not calling for more money; we said that. There is enough money in this system. We hear of organisations buying properties for a few thousand pounds—probably £100,000—then converting them into exempt accommodation and charging £1,000 per room in housing benefit per month. These are eye-watering sums of money. If that money was diverted into better accommodation and if local authorities had the powers to enforce it, using existing funds, it could all work well. We heard from the pilots that there were problems in lots of places, not just Birmingham, and every council that fed back said it could do more once it had some additional funds through the pilot schemes. That additional funding needs to be rolled out to all local authorities.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on presenting our report, which I agree with every single word of, and thank him for promoting my private Member’s Bill, which will have its Second Reading in this place on Friday 18 November. I trust that, with Government support, that Bill will include all the report’s recommendations or as many of them as we can shoehorn into it. We will have a Members’ briefing on Wednesday 2 November at 2.15 pm in Room W1, and I trust that we can get all-party support for the Bill and correct the wrongs.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the key issues is ensuring that local authorities can determine which homes are set up in their local area, which they know best, rather than having to deal with the consequences of one of these homes being set up and then try to close it down?

[Mr Betts]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, my friend on the Select Committee, with whom I have worked on many issues; this is a unanimous report. That is why we have called for local authorities to be given those powers. The Government have laid down some guidelines on standards, but they are not enforceable. In such a situation, it is no use saying to providers who are making millions of pounds, “Oh please don’t do it.” The standards must be enforced. Local authorities need those powers and they need to control access to the accommodation so that people with particular needs are put into accommodation that can deal with those needs and has the right sort of support. That is why we are calling for local authorities to have powers over the support as well. It is a comprehensive approach, and local authorities are best placed to enact it.

HOUSING, COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

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

[Mr Betts]

Future of the Planning System in England

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

My hon. Friend is a very valued member of the Select Committee. He has contributed to this report, and he is absolutely right. The Housing Minister came to the Select Committee yesterday to talk about permitted development rights, and a point we made in our questions to him was that the overall reform of the planning system, and giving greater certainty to what developments will or will not happen in a local plan, must not be undermined by permitted development running contrary to the proposals in the local plan. Local authorities must have the right to shape the place for which they are responsible, and that is something we will be looking at further in the report we produce on permitted development.

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

It will come as no surprise to the Chairman of the Select Committee that I agree with every word of his statement and of the report that we have published. Does he agree, however, that one of the prime concerns is that if the Government come forward with zoning of particular areas within a local authority area, and if a growth area is to be used with planning permission not going through the normal process, it will be essential that those areas are subject to a full public consultation by the local planning authority, setting out clearly the boundaries for height, density and other aspects of development on the site before any developer is allowed to get on site and do as they choose?

Public Services

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

I am very sympathetic to the point the hon. Gentleman makes about the situation in Cumbria. Having one council holding everything up certainly needs addressing, and I understand the problem he highlights.

I will move on to building safety. The Government have finally accepted that they will legislate to bring in the recommendations of the Hackitt review. When Dame Judith came to the Select Committee last December, she said she was disappointed that it had taken the Government seven months to accept that they would implement all her recommendations. I am a little bit worried that the Queen’s Speech refers to legislating, but no specific Bill is mentioned in the list of measures. Building safety is really important, but it needs to be accompanied by adequate funding.

Thousands of people in this country still live in high-rise blocks and other properties with dangerous cladding. The Government have put money in place for social housing, and they have now put it in place for the private sector, but there needs to be greater urgency to ensure that it is spent, and in particular that reluctant private owners are made to do the work. There is an additional problem. Not only high-rise but high-risk buildings, such as old people’s homes and hospitals, need addressing, as well as cladding other than ACM—for example, zinc cladding material. The Government are reviewing all that, but there are many concerns and suspicions. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has pushed hard on the matter in the Select Committee. Cladding needs addressing and the Government will have to find probably billions more pounds to deal with the problem to ensure that not merely homes, but hospitals, schools and every form of accommodation are safe.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. On safety in high-rise buildings, does he agree that it is repugnant that leaseholders could end up paying the cost of making the buildings safe and that the freeholders should take responsibility?

Leasehold Reform

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Thursday 21st March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

Yes. We called for an investigation into mis-selling, as did the Government. Let us hope that, between us, we get that done, particularly for older people who may not have understood some of the difficult complications with those sorts of properties.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman—I shall call him my hon. Friend—on his chairmanship of the Committee and on steering us towards this excellent report, in which I was pleased to participate. One point that he did not mention, given the time available to him, was the scandal of companies such as Bellway that sell the freeholds of properties to financial companies two years after they built them, without even notifying the leaseholders. Will he urge the Government to close the legal loophole that allows companies to sell properties to subsidiaries or other organisations without even notifying leaseholders and to ensure that leaseholders can buy the freehold at the same price that would be paid by any subsidiary?

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely. It is a complete scandal, and a number of developers have blatantly admitted that they sold on the property and did not tell the leaseholders what was being done. Ultimately, banning new houses from being built as leaseholds solves the problem, but immediately there ought to be a right of first refusal for leaseholders to buy their freehold at a clear and regulated price. The Law Commission is working on that issue, and we support that.

Private Rented Sector

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Thursday 29th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the owner of a small property portfolio.

I rise to do three things: first, to talk about the situation in my own borough of Harrow; secondly, to look at the detailed report that we, as a Committee, produced; and thirdly, to add a few things that I think are needed. It is pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), with his measured approach and his experience of having been the Housing Minister. Equally, it is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who I have worked with on this Committee over many years—probably more than we would care to mention.

On the Committee, and certainly since I have served on it, we make sure we proceed by consensus. Individuals may hold views that are not contained in the report, but it comes from the entirety of the Committee and is produced on a cross-party basis. I warmly welcome the Minister to her place and I hope she will tell us why the Government are not taking forward some of the measures that we have recommended—again, on that all-party basis.

In my borough, the private rented sector is growing dramatically. It used to be a tradition, in outer London in particular, that as people became more prosperous and more likely to commute for longer distances, they would sell their homes and move on, then commute into central London for a job. Nowadays, they tend not to sell their homes. They move on and acquire a new home, but they keep their existing home and rent it out. One challenge that has arisen in Harrow is that large numbers of properties—typical suburban, three-bedroom semis—are now rented out to 10, 12 or in some cases 20 people, who are living in them. This brings the consequences of antisocial behaviour and overcrowding, and quite frankly the people living there are being exploited.

Most people in that position come from eastern Europe. I now have 10,000 eastern Europeans living in my constituency. They are warmly welcomed—they are here to work and want to contribute to the economy—but they are being exploited. Rents of a typical three-bedroom property are in the order of £2,000 per month. If you have 20 people sharing that £2,000, then the rent is not too bad. However, the living conditions are absolutely disgraceful. That is, I think, one of the key challenges.

The local authority has responded by setting up a selective licensing scheme in one ward, which was vigorously opposed by the private landlords concerned for the obvious reason that they thought they would not be able to continue to exploit their tenants. The challenge for the Government when legislative changes take place is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford mentioned, that although the vast majority of tenants are satisfied with their position, what do we do about the bad, criminal landlords who exploit vulnerable people and make their lives a misery.

[Mr Betts]

We have been on the Committee together for more than eight years, and I think we have all had examples of landlords behaving quite badly, not merely in letting properties but in objecting to licensing schemes. It is not just about the regulatory framework, but about the fact that their names will be known, as well as which properties they own and rent out, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs gets rather interested at that point. The cost of that could actually dwarf anything else they have to do, such as paying fees for the licence.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that intervention. That is particularly true in the Edgware ward of the London Borough of Harrow, where I asked the council a series of questions about how many registered houses in multiple occupation they had on their books. I was astonished when they told me they had 89 for the borough. I can take Members to roads in Edgware where there are 89 in the road. One problem is the local authority’s resources to deal with these issues, but, more importantly, people just ignore their responsibilities. That has to be dealt with.

I come now to the report itself. I will not deal with the recommendations that the Government have taken on board, because they are fine and we all agree with them. I am delighted that they have been taken on. I worry about some aspects that the Government are not addressing so far. When the Minister replies, will she update us? The Government response was some five months ago and I hope that things have moved on. I will go through the report, looking at the questions that I would like the Minister to answer.

In the Government’s response, the housing health and safety rating system recommendation is partly accepted, but the view is that the Government will review the position in due course. Can the Minister update us on where that review is? The Chair of the Select Committee mentioned the reality of carbon monoxide poisoning and other safety measures in homes. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is no longer in her place, raised a desperate situation in her constituency. The issue is ensuring that tenants’ safety is paramount. Over the time I have served on the Select Committee, we have considered various different aspects of safety, and my concern is that building regulations and safety regulations do not seem to be being updated as they should, both to protect tenants and to point out to landlords their responsibilities. I would like to understand the Government’s position in that area.

Equally, where the Government and Law Commission are reviewing what legislation could be enacted, the Government say they are having discussions with the Law Commission. That is always helpful, but could we be updated with the results? As I have said, if we introduce legislation we must be careful that we do not put off good landlords from renting out their properties and maintaining good order at the same time as squeezing out the criminal behaviours that are clearly unacceptable.

I turn now to section 21 notices; we will have a debate on that subject next Thursday, I think, and I do not want to rehearse the discussions we will have there, because no doubt the Minister will be answering that debate too if it proceeds as expected.

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

All local authorities across the country which have had to issue these revised bills over a three-year period on business rates will be looking right now at what the bottom line is for them. The worrying factor about the way the Bill is being introduced is that the repayment is not automatic; each business that may have been affected will have to apply for revaluation. They will then be revalued and finally a bill will be decided, for potentially a three-year period, together with interest. Some businesses may not gain anything, but some will gain a substantial amount of money, with interest, and the local authorities will have to repay that. The current position, as I understand it—we need to press our Front Benchers on this issue—is that local authorities repaying that money would not have had this money if this judgment had not been made. However, they have applied that money to their budgets and they will have to find the money from within their budgets as one-off, windfall damage to their bottom line. That is unfair on the local authorities concerned. They have not taken the decision—this was not a decision any local authority took—so they should not be financially penalised as a result of this. I hope we can move to a position whereby the Department will agree to compensate all local authorities that are out of pocket as a direct result of these decisions, once we have got to a conclusion.

[Mr Betts]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work he did in scrutinising this legislation in my absence, and I agree with the point he is making now. Would it not be a lot more convincing from the Government when they say they are not going to compensate because the likely effect is small overall if they were to release to us their detailed calculations, which presumably they have done, about the impact on individual authorities?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for raising that issue. We are talking about 30,000 businesses, many of which will be concentrated in particular areas. We know that there will be a hit for some local authorities, which could be considerable. Hon. Members from across the House will not necessarily be aware of the potential hit for local authorities as a result.

Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me time, on behalf of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, to speak to the House today about our fourth report of this Session, which is on the private rented sector. The report concentrated on: the quality of accommodation; the balance of power between tenants and landlords; the legislative framework; and enforcement

This Committee last considered the private rented sector in a report in 2013, following which the Government carried forward many of our suggestions, including a reformed approach to selective licensing, the mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation and a new regulatory model for letting agents. We hope the Government will take forward many of our recommendations this time, too.

The private rented sector has doubled in size in the past 15 years. There are now 4.7 million households in the sector, including 1.8 million families with children, which represents 20% of all households. Statistics show that most housing in the sector is adequate, although Shelter told us that 53% of tenants had experienced at least one problem with conditions or repair in the past year. Although the overall proportion of inadequate properties in the sector has fallen, the absolute number has increased, and a significant minority of private rented accommodation continues to be shockingly inadequate. The English housing survey shows that approximately 800,000 private rented homes in England have at least one category 1 hazard, such as excess cold, mould or exposed wiring. In our online forum, we heard directly from tenants about the poor conditions they had suffered. One submission said:

“We live in a house full of mould and damp with four young children…We have …faulty electrics and water comes through the living room window when it rains…the whole family keeps getting ill from it.”

We wanted to know about the power relationship between landlords and tenants: are tenants, especially those at the lower end of the market, able to complain and get their problems attended to? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Citizens Advice told us that 44% of tenants said that a fear of eviction would stop them from negotiating with their landlord over disrepair. Shelter and Citizens Advice told us that they often reminded tenants about the risks of making complaints. We heard that 14% of tenants felt that they had been penalised for complaining, and more than 200,000 reported having been abused, threatened or harassed by a landlord. We found that there is a clear power imbalance, and we called on the Government to consider extending protections which they rightly introduced in the Deregulation Act 2015. We also agree with the Government that a specialist housing court would provide a more accessible route to redress for tenants and urge them to issue more detailed proposals as soon as possible.

We looked at the overall legislative framework. The Residential Landlords Association told us there were 140 Acts of Parliament and more than 400 regulations affecting landlords in the sector. Our 2013 report called for that to be consolidated and made simpler. Since then, we have had the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Deregulation Act 2015 and many others, so the situation is even more complicated. Therefore, we recommend again that the Law Commission undertakes a review of the legislation and provides guidance as to whether a new approach would bring more clarity for tenants, landlords and local authorities.

We focused on the housing health and safety rating system, and heard that there is a lack of understanding about how it works among landlords and tenants, and inconsistent application by local authorities. We called on the Government to immediately update the guidance on the rating system and eventually to introduce a more straightforward set of quality standards that everyone can understand.

We heard near unanimous support for the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). We, too, offer our support for the Bill, but we want to make sure vulnerable tenants at the lower end of the market are able to make use of these powers. We have therefore called for free and easily accessible technical and legal advice to support tenants. As it is likely tenants will seek this advice from local authorities, it is vital that they are suitably resourced to provide this additional service.

Most local authorities told us they were satisfied generally with the powers they have. However, powers can be meaningless if they are not actually used, and a freedom of information request showed that six out of 10 councils had not prosecuted a single landlord in 2016. One council, Newham, was responsible for 50% of all prosecutions across the country—why is that? Clearly, the level of protection being offered to vulnerable tenants in many councils is not adequate. The reasons we heard were: the legislation is over-complicated, as I have mentioned; local authorities have insufficient resources; and some local authorities simply lack the political will.

On resources, the Local Government Association has identified a funding gap of £5.8 billion by 2019-20. The Chartered Institute of Housing showed that local authority spending on enforcement has reduced by a fifth over a six-year period. The Government have rightly introduced civil penalties of up to £30,000 and allowed local authorities to keep that money, and they brought in rent repayment orders—both were recommendations in the Committee’s previous report. Local authorities need further funding, though, and we hope the Government will work with them to try to achieve that.

Concerns were expressed that local authorities could not always cover the full cost of prosecutions, which might deter them from prosecuting some cases. The Minister said that local authorities’ duty was to prosecute regardless, but, being cash-strapped, they will often take the cost into account when they make decisions. We believe that courts should require offenders to pay costs that reflect the actual costs to local authorities of enforcement actions.

As part of our inquiry, we went to Newham to look at the enforcement activity there. I saw a garden shed configured to accommodate not one, but two households. We heard of about 25 people being accommodated in a small three-bedroom house. People were living in a walk-in freezer. A family was living in a chipboard construction in a garden, with a fridge and a washing machine powered by a wire from the kitchen. These are shocking conditions, and the fines and civil penalties should be increased.

However, the very worst landlords, whose business model relies on the exploitation of vulnerable tenants, can make hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. To them, a civil penalty of £30,000, however large an amount that is, is merely a business expense. To deal with the worst of the criminal landlords, we call for local authorities to have the power to take action to secure the confiscation of properties from landlords who commit the very worst offences, and to break their business model, which relies on the exploitation of vulnerable tenants.

Aside from the adequacy of resources or the severity of penalties, variations in enforcement between councils indicate that some local authorities have placed a higher priority on standards than others. We have called for authorities to publish their enforcement strategies and for a national benchmarking scheme, so that residents can compare enforcement between authorities. Ultimately, we believe that the disparity can be addressed only through political leadership.

In recognition of the particular interests of some Members, we supported the findings of the all-party group on carbon monoxide, which has called for landlords to install carbon monoxide alarms in the rooms of private rented properties that contain any fuel-burning appliance. We also supported the call for the Government to implement mandatory five-yearly checks on electrical installations in private rented property—an issue on which the Government have been consulting.

Finally, we looked into selective landlord licensing schemes. Since April 2015, local authorities have had to seek approval from the Government for selective schemes that would cover more than 20% of their area or more than 20% of privately rented homes in it. We heard that decision making was too slow, lacked transparency and was over-bureaucratic. Even local authorities that had decided against implementing a scheme felt that the decision should rest at local level.

In our view, decisions to implement such schemes should be made locally, where there is greater understanding of local needs and politicians are directly accountable to their electorates. We recommend that the Government remove the 20% cap; however, the Secretary of State should retain a power to require local authorities to reconsider a decision to implement a scheme that does not meet the strict criteria already set out by the Government.

As the private rented sector continues to expand and people remain in the sector for far longer, the Government need to address the clear power imbalance between tenants and landlords, and to ensure that local authorities have the resources they need to enforce the even stronger laws that we are recommending, to protect the most vulnerable tenants living in the worst conditions.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is good to see my friend the Chair of the Select Committee back in his place after his medical treatment. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I agree absolutely with every point made in the report. In respect of retaliatory evictions, does he agree that one issue that must be resolved is assured shorthold tenancies of six months, which are the norm for the private sector? If we extended those to three-year tenancies, that would strike a better balance between tenants and landlords.

[Mr Betts]

I absolutely agree. In our previous report—my friend, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), was also a member of the Committee at the time—we called for longer-term tenancies and greater certainty and security. We recognise what the Government have done under the Deregulation Act 2015 in terms of protection against retaliatory evictions, but the problem in the current market is that if a tenant does not formally complain in writing to the local authority, and the local authority then does not get enforcement action, there is actually no protection. We also recognise that the new legislation coming in, such as the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), could leave the tenant open to retaliatory eviction, and in that legislation there is no protection from it. That is why we say that we should look again at that particular issue.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

If my hon. Friend would like to go through the 18 pages of the Bill, he will find that people leaving the armed forces are specifically mentioned as being owed a duty under it. Under the armed forces covenant, they should already be provided with accommodation and with help and assistance from their relevant local authority, but there is a new duty on the armed forces to refer people who are leaving to the relevant local authority so that they get help and assistance early on rather than having to seek advice separately. Someone who is leaving the armed forces, as a planned move, should be referred to their relevant local authority, which of course may not be where they are currently based as a member of the armed forces.

I am particularly pleased that the Minister has proposed in his amendments that the requirement for interim accommodation is continued until any reviews are completed. One of the key aspects of the Bill, from my perspective, is to make sure that applicants who are facing an absolute crisis point in their lives, many of whom are becoming homeless for the first time ever, are not put in a position whereby they are told by a local authority, “This is what you’re going to have—take it or leave it.” It is absolutely imperative that there is an agreement between the applicant and the local authority. If the local housing authority acts in an unfair way from the perspective of the applicant, there must also be a process whereby they can seek external help or assistance from appropriate charities in order to get a review to make sure that they are given the proper help and advice and end up being in a position to be offered accommodation.

I welcome these amendments and hope the whole House will support them.

[Mr Betts]

When we discuss a Bill on Report, there are times when we find ourselves dealing with an awful lot of Government amendments and suspect that Ministers are trying, at the last minute, to slide one or two contentious issues past the House under the radar, thinking that people might miss them due to the great complexity of our discussions—[Interruption.] I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) never did that when he was a Minister, as he has just indicated. This, however, is not one of those occasions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, there has been a great deal of discussion not only in the House, by Members on both sides, but outside it with the charities arguing the case for homeless people, the Local Government Association and landlords, among others, to try to get this right. It is important that we do get it right, even though the process has taken a bit longer than some of us would have wished.

Once again, I pay tribute to the diligence and forbearance of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) in trying to get us moving forward in a consensual manner on these issues. As he said, it took us a long time to get to this version of clause 1, which has appeared in many formats. It goes to the heart of the concerns that many of us have about the workings of existing legislation. One of the worst aspects of the way in which homeless families are currently treated—even those who are acknowledged to have a priority need—is that they are told to go away, sit at home and wait for the court to hear their case, and that then the authority may act, once a court order has been made, to deal with their situation. In the very worst cases, they are told, “Wait until the bailiff has arrived and while you are out on the street, we might decide to deal with you as a homeless family.” That situation is not acceptable, so it is important that it changes as a result of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman said that, importantly, the 56-day provision will not end responsibility—the prevention duty continues beyond that time if a family does not yet have settled circumstances.

I had concerns that the specific requirement to deal with homelessness once a section 21 notice had been served, rather than allowing the matter to get to court, which was in a previous version of clause 1, had been taken out. I accept that the requirement for local authorities to exercise the prevention duty means that as soon as a section 21 notice is served and the family provide the local authority with that information, the duty kicks in and the local authority immediately has to seek to resolve the family’s homelessness and look for alternative accommodation for them.

The code of guidance, which was discussed at length in the Bill Committee—I had a discussion about it with the Minister outside the room and then we referred to it in Committee—will be important to make it clear to local authorities how they should treat a family who are subject to a section 21 notice and in priority need. They will need to make sure that they do not get to the court stage before action is taken. It is also important for making sure that an offer acknowledges, as far as possible, an individual family’s circumstances with regard to the schooling of children, the employment of family members, caring responsibilities and so on. Moreover, if a family have to be offered accommodation outside the borough, the receiving borough has to be notified that they are coming. Many of those important issues are in the existing code of guidance, but authorities have not implemented the code or addressed them.

We all hope that the Bill will be enacted before long. The Minister said helpfully in Committee that he will present the code of guidance to Parliament for approval, which is welcome. Our Select Committee has said that we will quickly arrange an evidence session on the code because we want to make sure that it is right. Getting the Act right but having a code of guidance that does not work will leave us no better off; getting both of them right will make the situation much better so that local authorities are able to address the issue of homeless families. I hope that Ministers will welcome that as another way in which the Select Committee can play a constructive role in this private Member’s Bill process by ensuring that the legislation has cross-party support and really works for homeless people.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—I shall call him my hon. Friend—for giving way. We look forward to the publication of the code of guidance once the Bill is enacted. The Bill also makes provision for issuing statutory codes of practice, so if local authorities fail to live up to both the spirit and the letter of the law, the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to impose on them a requirement to do what we expect them to do.

[Mr Betts]

That is very helpful. The Select Committee might well want to extend its remit and look at those codes of practice as well to make sure that everything is working. Indeed, the Minister has gone further by saying that he wants local authorities to indicate to the Government how they intend to implement the Bill. Ministers want to work with the LGA to get templates for how elements of the Bill, including giving advice to individuals who are not in priority need, should be implemented. Those are welcome measures and the LGA will want to be thoroughly involved in the process. With those comments about the issues that will need to be addressed once the Bill becomes an Act, I am happy to support the Government amendments.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 11th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, which I will take on board and think about. There will certainly be guidance relating to the substantive clause on the duty to refer. Whether that guidance will look further into collaboration in places that are doing a good job remains to be seen, but I will certainly look at the question, as he suggests.

Finally, we will also support councils through a network of advisers. That is possibly where the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, might apply. The advisers are experts who will work with local authorities to produce multi-agency homelessness strategies. They will also agree protocols and pathways between services in line with the good practice that already exists.

We believe that the initiatives I have set out are powerful ones that will help with best practice and encourage the delivery of local partnerships. I am not sure whether we are to have a clause stand part debate, but if we do, I shall be able to set out in more detail how the duty to refer will work. It will be an important step towards where we want to be; it will also be important for encouraging the sort of local collaboration that we want. For all those reasons, the Government believe that the amendment is unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Gentleman withdraw it.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I echo the Minister in wishing everyone a happy new year, as we rush towards completion of our Committee sittings on this private Member’s Bill.

The Minister is quite right that there was a similar clause on duty to co-operate in the original draft Bill, and he has set out the position on co-operation between service partners. Clearly, we shall have further discussion on that on clause stand part. This matters for defining how the relationship between service partners works. Service partners are co-operating in a number of innovative local operations, and the last thing that any of us wants is to stymie those local approaches. It is important to give them a chance to work, see what best practice is, and bring forward alternatives.

Legislation is only one tool in the box for helping to relieve homelessness. We are imposing a duty—we shall come on to this in clause stand part—to refer individuals from different public bodies. My real concern about the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee is that it would give carte blanche on the duty to co-operate, without specifying what such co-operation would look like. I have a lot of sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, but the general intention of the Bill is to drive through a culture change, and an element of that is wanting culture change—in local authorities, but also in all public bodies across the piece. It is important to create strong local working relationships, and on that basis I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

The problem with this amendment in many ways is that because it includes a duty to co-operate overall, it runs the risk of creating a maelstrom across public services because of its uncosted and unbudgeted element, which would cause a problem in future. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. I have a lot of sympathy with wanting to ensure that we have proper co-operation, but the first part of that is ensuing that public bodies refer homeless people to the local authority, so that they get expert help and advice.

[Mr Betts]

I wish everyone a happy new year and echo the sentiments of the Minister and the Bill’s promoter. I will not press the amendment for reasons that I will explain, but I want to keep an eye on the issue, because I am not totally convinced by what the Minister said.

I recognise that the Minister and the Bill’s promoter want public bodies to co-operate in all shapes and forms. I accept that that is their intention and take their comments at face value. However, I am not totally convinced that all Departments always want to engage in this way. There is a history of some Departments being less co-operative than others on some of these matters, and I think we all know that. That applies not just to Departments and Ministers, but down the line to local health bodies, for example, which in my experience are not always co-operative in every shape or form, though many are. That is the issue; it is not just about Departments, but about what happens in practice on the frontline. I listened to what the Minister said about guidance. I hope that he will reflect further on that and talk to his colleagues in other Departments about what can be done to get the message down the line about what is expected.

I thought there was a little conflict in what the Committee was told this morning. The Minister talked about a one-size-fits-all approach; a requirement on a public authority to co-operate in a very general sense cannot be described as a one-size-fits-all approach. It is a very general requirement. Indeed, the promoter of the Bill said that the amendment does not specify what co-operation looks like. If it does not specify that, it can hardly be described as a one-size-fits-all approach. The two do not quite sit together.

The Minister referred to York and Brighton, where good things are happening. That is right and is to be encouraged and commended. If authorities are co-operating anyway, this is hardly a new burden on them. My suspicion is that it is not happening everywhere. He gave examples of where it is happening, not where it is not, and there could be examples of where it is not. The amendment would require all authorities to come up to the standard of the best. It might impose a duty, but a duty that should be there anyway. I hope that, even if this requirement cannot be in the Bill, the Minister will reflect on the issue of guidance, and let us know what he intends to do about it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Bob Blackman]

I beg to move,

That the Order of the Committee of 23 November 2016, as amended on 30 November, be amended, by inserting at the end—

“and on 18 January when the Committee will meet at 2.00 pm as well as 9.30 am.”

By way of a brief explanation, this change would mean that the Committee would sit not only in the morning, but in the afternoon until we conclude our business. We have had a number of sittings during which we have had vigorous debate, which is absolutely right, but we need to move the Bill forward so that it returns to the Chamber on Report. My intention as the Bill’s promoter is for Report and, hopefully, Third Reading to be on 27 January. That would obviously necessitate us concluding our debates and deliberations next Wednesday, by when we will have certainty about concluding proceedings and the Bill going back to the Chamber. We have important issues still to resolve, but I trust that Wednesday afternoon will give us sufficient time to debate and discuss vigorously those elements.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 7th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Betts]

That brings the discussion of this matter to a conclusion. I thank the Minister for his reassurance and for taking the significant initiative of having that conversation ahead of this sitting to try to get agreement. Not all Ministers behave in that way, so when they do we should respect it and have proper regard for it, because that is how things should be done. I very much thank the Minister for that, and I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East for joining that discussion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank hon. Members for the amendments they have tabled and for the debate we have had. I reiterate to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East that we are not talking about mere guidance; local authorities will be ordered to take into account matters of education and employment, and the other aspects he mentioned. We wish to proceed in this Committee by consensus and discussion. If we can agree on that, it is going to help considerably.

Clause 3 will require local housing authorities to carry out an assessment for all cases in which an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The housing authority will have to look at the circumstances that caused the person to become homeless, or that threatened them with homelessness, which will be specific to that person, and it will have to look at the person’s housing and support needs.

Following the assessment, the authority must work with the applicant to agree what steps need to be taken by the applicant to secure and retain suitable accommodation, and what steps need to be taken by the authority to help them. The steps must be notified to the applicant in writing, in the form of an agreed plan, which will mean that applicants will be clear on what steps they, as well as the local authority, need to take to get accommodation.

There may be circumstances in which agreement cannot be reached. If that is the case, the local authority must record the reasons why and provide the applicant with a written copy of them that also contains the steps that the authority will take and those that it thinks it would be reasonable for the applicant to take.

The clause has been included in the Bill because local housing authorities are not currently required to assess the circumstances that have caused an applicant to become homeless or to be threatened with homelessness. That can lead to vital information about the applicant’s circumstances being missed, which in turn causes them extra difficulties. By asking applicants for more information about what happened to make them homeless or led to their being threatened with homelessness, a potential solution should be identified.

A more personalised approach will definitely help local housing authorities to get it right first time and prevent people from becoming homeless. The tailored approach will help the applicant and the housing authority to understand the actions that have to be taken and the responsibilities on both sides. The clear intention is to help both the housing authority and households to become more effective in preventing and alleviating homelessness, thereby diverting more households from the crisis point.

I have sympathy with the desire of the hon. Members for Westminster North and for Sheffield South East to ensure that the consideration of specific issues relating to education, employment, health and other matters is spelled out. Only this past weekend, a constituent’s case was related to me. The husband is undergoing knee surgery at a local hospital, the three children are in local Harrow schools, and both the mother and father of the children are employed locally. Harrow Council has offered them a place in Wolverhampton, so it is clear that the existing order is not being enforced correctly. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to making sure that local authorities understand and implement their duties. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Local connection of a care leaver

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We had a good discussion in the Communities and Local Government Committee on this as well. He is absolutely right. The clause tries to anticipate an ideal situation in the future that Ministers can act upon, while recognising the reality that, if we increased it to 12 months now, that might exclude a whole range of accommodation and make it very difficult in some areas for local authorities to find the right accommodation to offer.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee. This is one of the aspects that we looked at in the Select Committee and in pre-legislative scrutiny. A longer period of 12 months was in the original draft, but after consideration of the problems we currently face, that was amended to six months. That is the minimum we would expect. We would all like to see that extended to a much longer tenancy so that families and individuals have more permanency about where they are living, but we are just setting the minimum.

Finally, the authority must give notice to the applicant to bring the duty to an end. That notice must

“specify which of the circumstances apply”

and inform the applicant that he or she

“has a right to request a review of the authority’s decision”.

It is absolutely appropriate that we get to the point where individuals will have a notice in writing informing them that the local authority is ending its duty, where they can ask for a review of the process because of the relevant circumstances.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

It is quite clear there should be an opportunity for everyone to exercise the right to buy. In London, people who use buy-to-let arrangements are getting a return of probably about 3% to 4% on their capital. They are not necessarily getting a huge rate of return, so they are providing facilities for people to live in accommodation when those people cannot possibly afford to buy their own home, or choose not to do so. There are people who choose to rent rather than buy because that suits their lifestyle better.

I want to move on to an issue that seems to have been forgotten in all this. The reality is that someone who demonstrates that their housing need is sufficient—in other words, they are homeless—has a chance of winning the lottery prize of getting social rented accommodation. If they currently get such a prize, they can live in the property for the rest of their life, regardless of their income. That has to be wrong; it should not happen. People come to me every day and say, “I can’t get a council property. I can’t afford to rent a property in the constituency. All the local authority is offering is, with respect, a place in Bradford, Wolverhampton or somewhere in Birmingham, but nowhere near London.” The reality is that people are being priced out of the market because we are building too few homes and, equally, we are allowing people to live in social rented accommodation for far too long after their incomes have risen considerably. That cannot be right. Social rented accommodation should be for people who need it.

[Mr Betts]

Is the hon. Gentleman therefore saying that pay to stay is intended to drive people out of social rented accommodation when they earn more than £40,000? Will they actually be priced out? He seems to be implying that if they live in social housing, there will not be enough social housing for other people, and that we therefore need to get them out of such properties so that poorer people can have them.

[Bob Blackman]

No. This is where there might be differences between London and the south-east, and other parts of the country. The vast majority of London council house tenants, and even housing association tenants, are on the maximum housing benefit, so the public sector is picking up the cost of their rent. I am saying that if someone is earning more—if they are above the threshold—they should contribute more to the cost of their rent. When we examine the figures, we can see that tenants actually pay very little in rent in most parts of London at the moment because housing benefit picks up the cost of their rent. I am saying that if people are employed in reasonable occupations with reasonable incomes, it is right that they should contribute to the cost of public sector housing, and that principle is set out in the Bill. It is the right approach and one we should thoroughly endorse tonight. It is important to put it on record that this is not an attempt to force people out of social rented accommodation; it is a matter of fairness and of people paying their way reasonably.

Transport for London has 5,700 acres of land in London, and while not all of it is developable, a lot of it is. That is one public authority in London that has an opportunity to provide land that could be used for the development of housing for rent or for sale. I piloted the Bill that will enable TfL to provide the homes that are required, and it was interesting that the only opposition to it came from London Labour Members, who opposed the opportunity for more than 50,000 homes to be built in London for the very people they represent. I suggest that we should reject all the Lords amendments that are a deliberate attempt to wreck the scope of the Bill, which contributes to the creation of more housing and more affordable housing, to the opportunity for people to own their own homes, and to local authorities working in partnership with the Government to deliver the homes that people want.

Litter and Fly-tipping: England

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Thursday 25th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Betts]

No, it does not, because they are not part of the same declaration, but I will come on to chewing gum in a minute, because it is a different but interesting subject.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

A sticky subject!

[Mr Betts]

I was just about to say it, but the hon. Member for Harrow East got in before me—I was reflecting on whether it was appropriate, but it obviously was.

It is a difficult issue, but the Committee—most of us are generally localists—decided that we understood the declaration and the LGA’s position, and that it was up to local authorities to make a decision themselves. We also said that if they did so, they should not allow themselves to be used in any way by tobacco manufacturers to gain any advantage or engage in any promotion of tobacco products—to give any impression that tobacco was okay because the companies were making a contribution towards a public service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly the packaging that McDonald’s and other fast food restaurants use is a matter for them, but the consequences of packaging are not limited to fast food—there are whole ranges of unnecessary packaging. However, the point is whether we should look at duties on fast food restaurants to act in the same responsible way as McDonald’s.

In my constituency we have a perennial problem with a Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-through restaurant where people drive in, park up the road, eat their chicken and throw the bones on the floor—they literally drop them out of their car windows—for local residents to suffer. Surely we can ensure that the fast food restaurants have a duty to keep their areas clear. I leave the implementation of that to the great thoughts of my hon. Friend the Minister, but we must say, “The consequences of you selling your products are the costs of clearing up.” Let us look at some solutions to that.

[Mr Betts]

I did not cover this point in my introduction, but the hon. Gentleman is right. My Committee gave specific praise to McDonald’s because of what it does and said all fast food restaurants, takeaways and so on should have a legal responsibility to clean up in their areas. The Government came back and said that they did not want a general duty, but that local authorities have powers to act under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 where there is a persistent problem. I wonder whether many local authorities use that power; I am not sure if figures are kept about that. Going down that route presumably has quite a considerable cost for local authorities. Does the hon. Gentleman think we ought to push the Government a little bit harder, to see what we can effectively do about this?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman who chairs the Select Committee. We have to press the Government further on this issue, and we will clearly return to it in this term. If the Government do not take action, we will as a Committee almost certainly conclude that further action is required. If the Government do not come up with a scheme, we will suggest an alternative.

Another area of social change in this country is that we are shifting to a lot more people living in private rented accommodation. People quite frequently live in such accommodation for short periods of six months to one year and then move to another area, which may involve moving from one local authority to another. That has consequences.

As a true localist, I applaud local authorities collecting domestic rubbish as they so choose. However, if we go to any London borough or any local authority up and down the country, we will find different coloured bins for different types of waste—be it general waste, dry recycled waste, food waste or garden waste. In some local authorities, there are five different bins, all with different colours. No information is supplied to individuals living in households in the area as to which rubbish they should put in which bin, except when the local authority issues the bins.

The problem is that when people move, they may then put rubbish in the wrong bins, and it is particularly people who come from another country to live in this country—I am not blaming them for this. They want to do the right thing; they want to dispose of their rubbish. They put the rubbish in the bin that they think is the right one. They may have moved from one local authority to another, so they just use the same colour bin. However, when the rubbish comes to be collected, the bin men arrive and say, “Nope. It’s the wrong rubbish in the wrong bin,” and just leave it there and move on to the next house.

As a consequence, the bins rapidly fill up and overflow, causing rats, mice and other vermin to congregate. Worse still, particularly in shared households, what tends to happen is that people say, “I’ve got to get rid of my rubbish. What am I going to do with it? The local authority hasn’t collected my bin and hasn’t told me why. What I’ll do is put my rubbish in a plastic bag, wander down to the end of the road and deposit it on the corner.” Rats, foxes, dogs, cats and all sorts of vermin then chew the bags and the rubbish goes everywhere.

My suggestion is relatively simple. When someone moves into private rented accommodation, one of their duties is to register on the electoral register with the local authority. Surely local authorities should have a duty to issue people who move into the area and register for the first time with a simple guide to how to dispose of rubbish. It is not rocket science but, to my knowledge, that is not done anywhere in the country. Some enlightened places may do it, but the reality is that it is not generally happening. It would be so easy to do. It could be one sheet that goes out when someone registers to vote, saying, “Here’s advice on how you dispose of your rubbish.” At a stroke, we would remove quite a few of the problems that occur with fly-tipping. From what I can see, a lot of fly-tipping is a consequence of people not getting their domestic waste collected.

Another associated problem is that many local authorities are now choosing to charge for the collection of garden waste. I remember introducing wheelie bins for the first time in my local authority when I was a local authority leader. We had a great song and dance about it—“Throw all your rubbish in the bin. It’ll be collected once a week and we’ll sort it out for recycling and other purposes.” It was a great idea. For the first time, garden waste was collected, free of charge. The problem is that as local authorities then separated out the various different types of service, they cottoned on to the fact that they do not have to collect garden waste free of charge. They therefore then imposed a charge on collecting garden waste, which is deeply unpopular and is a monopoly service, because no one else provides it.

The reality is that the charges are very different depending on where they are in the country. I have done a study demonstrating that in London my own borough, which is introducing the charge from April, will have the highest level. That is a deterrent straight away to people registering for the service. People who have gardens and are therefore likely to generate garden waste will dispose of their garden waste somehow. One problem with the charge is that those people will say, “Actually, I’m not prepared to pay for a service that I think should be provided by the local authority free of charge”—and has been, by the way, for a number of years—“so I’ll find another way of disposing of it.” Fly-tipping will become more prevalent as a result.

It is certainly true that where charges have been imposed, fly-tipping of garden waste in particular has increased quite dramatically. That is a consequence of charging for services that people see as part of the council tax they pay. The Government need to look at that carefully. I take the view that the charges for such services should be kept under review, because it cannot be correct that equivalent authorities are charging very different prices for the same service. Something is going wrong somewhere when that is the case.

[Mr Betts]

I understand the problem. It certainly caused a great deal of concern in my constituency when charges were introduced. The problem was that it is not the council that introduced the charge; it is Veolia, the contractor. Veolia fixes the charge and refuses to take instalment payments, so people have to pay it up front. That is a deterrent to people, particularly those on low incomes. There is a challenge when contractors—ones that make a lot of money out of this—introduce that sort of charge for the service.

[Bob Blackman]

That is a clear concern. It depends, of course, on the contract that has been set up between the local authority and the supplier. In London—I cannot speak for the hon. Gentleman’s area—we have done quite a detailed study of this issue, and it is local authorities implementing the charges, not contractors. In my borough, it is a direct service—it is not even being provided by an outside contractor, which demonstrates that there is a particular problem.

[Bob Blackman]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. That has happened in a lot of local authorities up and down the country.

I will move on to bulky waste, to which the Chair of the Select Committee also alluded. There are duties for certain items to be collected when someone buys a replacement, but I think we will all have seen beds, sofas, garden furniture and ordinary furniture just dumped on the streets and left to rot. The reality is that much of that, and mattresses in particular, could be collected at the same time as people are buying new ones. I have seen certain local authorities that routinely go around and collect mattresses that have been left in particular areas. In areas with houses in multiple occupation, landlords will turn out the beds on a routine basis, especially when there has been a turnover of people living in those properties. When there are mattresses on the street, they have to be collected and dealt with. Surely there should be a duty on suppliers, as part and parcel of the process of delivering mattresses, sofas and other items, to collect and take away the old ones and dispose of them free of charge to the individual who is buying the new product. The Government should look at that in order to reduce costs.

The other issue with fly-tipping is that it is definitely on the increase. We have to combat it in every way, shape or form. Two types of fly-tipping are of particular concern. There is fly-tipping on the public highway, which hon. Members have mentioned, along with fly-tipping on street corners and all sorts of areas of the public highway that tend to be out of sight. People just wander along and either dump their rubbish from a car or, alternatively, dump it on service roads, whether to shops or domestic properties, as access points to garages. They are often the biggest problem of all, for the simple reason that they are on private land, so local authorities will say, “Nothing to do with us; you have to pay for that rubbish to be removed,” whereas residents say, “Well, it’s nothing to do with us. We didn’t dump it there in the first place.” The rubbish then builds up and up, till it becomes a health hazard and finally the local authority has to step in, remove it and try and identify who was responsible. It is often good luck if they find anything associated with the individual who dumped it in the first place. Often that is not possible.

I suspect this will be difficult, but we will have to look at what the duties are to collect fly-tipping on private land and whether any can be passed on to local authorities or whether there is some other way of dealing with fly-tipping on service roads. I know this is of great concern to many residents up and down the country, and there do not seem to be proper regulations to control it.

[Mr Betts]

To deter fly-tipping, we said we wanted to see powers to impound vehicles engaged in fly-tipping. One very positive thing that we probably ought to report—and, again, congratulate the Government on—is that they brought those regulations into force on 6 April. That was really welcome. In serious cases, a vehicle engaged in fly-tipping can be impounded and taken away, which is a really strong penalty and deterrent.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee again for making that point about a good thing that the Government have done.

All in all, this is a comprehensive report, with some simple recommendations about which most right-minded people would say, “Well, let’s implement those.” There are some dilemmas for the Government in their deliberations on fly-tipping and littering, but I would welcome the Minister’s views on how some of the ideas we have floated today can be taken forward and implemented across the country, while allowing local authorities to develop new strategies to deal with fly-tipping and littering as appropriate in their local communities. It is also about making it clear that there are duties to keep areas clean and duties on individuals to ensure that they do not dump rubbish and act in an antisocial manner.

In conclusion, it was a pleasure to work on this report. It upsets most residents across the country to see rubbish thrown everywhere. Clearly this is an area where a clean-up is necessary.

Select Committee on Communities and Local Government

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

I would have thought that making this statement today was a start to that process and give the report some publicity. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be sending messages to his colleagues in the other place where he wants to draw particular aspects to their attention. A key issue is how the right-to-buy scheme should be funded. I think it would be very helpful for their lordships if the Government were to produce the calculations on how the sale of high-value council assets in relation to right-to-buy discounts, the replacement of the sold-off council homes, and the brownfield regeneration fund—which I think we can all support as a very good principle—can all be funded. We need to see the Government’s figures given that we had evidence from the Chartered Institute of Housing that the maximum amount raised from the levy would be about £2.2 billion a year, which would not cover the three costs that need to be covered to meet the Government’s intentions.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I welcome the statement from the Chair of the Select Committee, on which I am pleased to serve. I can confirm that this report was, helpfully, agreed on a cross-party basis. I commend him for his diligent work in ensuring that we did come to such an agreement even though it was quite difficult at times. Does he agree that it is important to increase not only the supply but the mixture of tenure? One of the key concerns that the Government have addressed, thanks to an amendment to the Bill, is that social rented homes sold will be replaced on a two-for-one basis. I think that is warmly welcomed. We also need to make sure that the homes that are sold are for owner-occupation and do not end up in the private rented sector market, because that denies people the right to own their own home.

[Mr Betts]

When a home is bought under the right to buy and the Government then continue with their policy of selling a council home to pay for it, if both those homes could be replaced with properties that meet the needs of those communities, I think everyone would feel a lot more comfortable about the direction of travel. As I understand it, the two-for-one replacement is a London-only commitment at this stage, and it is not precisely clear what the tenure of the two-homes replacement would be. That is one of the unanswered questions. Another is that we do not yet know how the levy raised on councils would be distributed around the country. Presumably the specific requirement for London means that some sort of regional ring-fencing will be in place, but we do not know precisely what that will be until the Government say so.

Yes, there is a concern about homes being bought under the right to buy and then becoming homes in the private rented sector. We can all see why that is. When people have bought their council homes, we see the front doors and front windows appearing in those newly bought homes, and a few years later we go back and probably see the roofs that have not been repaired, indicating that those homes have been passed on to the private rented sector. That is a challenge the Committee identified, and I hope that the Government will work with the National Housing Federation to explore how it might be dealt with.

Local Government Procurement

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

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

(Select Committee Statement): I am delighted to present the sixth report from the Communities and Local Government Committee on local government procurement, HC 712. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this opportunity, as well as our special adviser, Colin Cram, and the second Clerk to the Committee, Sarah Coe, who led the work in producing the report.

Local government spends about a quarter of its annual expenditure—some £45 billion—on procuring goods and services. At a time of financial constraint in local government, my Committee thought it timely to examine how successfully councils across the country are delivering value for money and meeting wider objectives. I am pleased that we found evidence of much good progress in many local authorities. Councils are cutting costs and reducing the burdens on those doing business with them, strengthening links with the delivery of community objectives, improving risk management, and taking steps to reduce fraud. We also found, however, that evidence of progress was patchy across the country. That is extremely worrying given that councils face the challenges of managing increasingly complex procurement operations, while at the same time, for obvious reasons, they need to make cost savings and preserve the quality of services for their communities.

The Committee makes a number of recommendations in the report about how the sector and its partners, including central Government, can work together to ensure that councils step-up their efforts to commit to delivering first-class procurement. As in all our reports, the Committee takes a localist approach, giving councils the freedom to tailor their approaches to meet local needs—hence we urge the sector to take the lead in this matter. The Committee makes three overarching recommendations and a number of specific points. I will refer initially to the three overarching points.

First, local government needs to lead the change in partnership with central Government and other partners. We commend the work undertaken to date by many councils and the Local Government Association. We endorse the sector-led approach to supporting council action since it is an effective means of spreading good practice while tailoring procurement to local needs. Nevertheless, a step-change is now needed for successes to be replicated across the country, and for detailed support to be provided to tackle all complex aspects of procurement. We therefore conclude that the LGA, with the support of DCLG, should establish a taskforce with representatives of the private and third sectors to develop an action plan for improving council capacity to conduct effective procurement. We recommend that the Cabinet Office dedicate resources to ensure that lessons learned in central Government are translated into effective council action where appropriate, and vice versa.

Secondly, procurement excellence needs to be embedded across councils, not seen as the preserve of a handful of specialists. A lesson we learned during the Committee’s visit to my city of Sheffield, was that procurement should not be seen as a niche activity, conducted in back offices by a narrow set of specialists, but rather as a vital cross-cutting activity that requires in-depth skills from all staff involved in designing, commissioning and particularly managing services once contracts are let. To achieve that, councils must step up training, and the sector—especially the LGA—needs to ensure that procurement skills are embedded across councils. Investment in procurement skills should be seen as a wise investment now because it saves money in the future. Councils should look at adopting the toolkit developed by Sheffield city council, and the Cabinet Office should consider how the Government’s Commissioning Academy can help develop the skills of local government officers.

The third overarching recommendation is the need for political and officer leadership. Procurement improvement must be spearheaded by council cabinet members and front-line councillors, with the close involvement of senior officers. We commend the LGA for putting procurement at the top table within councils. We can see considerable advantage to councils identifying a lead cabinet member and a senior officer who will take overall responsibility for procurement. Councils should also ensure that front-line councillors have a clearly defined role in reviewing and scrutinising procurement, including outsourced contracts, and their impact on services for residents. In the end, that is what is important: services for residents.

We would like all councils to make an annual statement to their full council meetings to set out their strategy for incorporating economic, social and environmental value in procurement, including employment terms and conditions, impact on local economies and small businesses, and relationships between contractors, customers and the relevant councils.

In total, the Committee makes 29 specific recommendations. You will probably be pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not have time to go into all of them, but I will mention some key recommendations.

On value for money, councils have shown that they can save millions of pounds through joining up with each other and other public sector bodies, directly or via procurement organisations, to buy some goods and services. However, opportunities are not being taken fully and we estimate, conservatively, additional savings of approximately £1.8 billion could be achieved with better collaborative approaches. The LGA should review collaborative approaches and produce best practice guidance. It should continue to focus on supporting councils to collaborate in key spend areas—particularly in IT, energy and construction, where it is relatively easy for collaboration to save money—while recognising the importance of local freedoms and flexibilities. Securing savings should not come at the expense of delivering wider commissioning objectives, such as supporting local economies. There can be no compulsion to collaborate or to join a centralised procurement body. Councils must retain the flexibility to deliver local priorities, but should consider examples of good practice.

On delivering economic, social and environmental objectives, the Committee was clear that councils should exploit fully the potential of their procurement spend to deliver local strategic priorities, including social, economic and environmental objectives, by letting contracts, as appropriate locally, on the basis of best value, not simply lowest price. A case in point is support for small local businesses, which all local authorities are keen to support. Some 47% of council spend is currently channelled via small and medium-sized enterprises. There is clearly much good practice, but more could be done, for example by the LGA disseminating best practice and guidance.

On reducing costs to businesses, the cost to a business of a typical council procurement exercise can be about £40,000 to £50,000. A Centre for Economics and Business Research report published in July 2013 found that UK procurement processes were the most expensive in the EU and took some 53 days longer than average. Too many councils are applying EU regulations over-zealously. The Government and the LGA should spell out what is a proportionate approach. Pre-qualification questionnaires should be standardised, so that councils do not require a new form for every contract and potential suppliers do not find themselves having to fill in different forms for every local authority and every public body. There should be standardisation to reduce costs. Councils must include requirements in contracts that contractors stick to timetables for paying their subcontractors right down the supply chain, with spot checks on implementation. It is not acceptable for firms to delay payment, which puts smaller firms, in particular, at risk of cash-flow crises.

Outsourcing a contract does not mean outsourcing responsibility for ensuring quality and consistency of service to residents. It is therefore alarming that in the worst cases councils not only fail to monitor quality but bear the costs when a contractor fails to deliver its side of the contract. It is vital that councils are equipped to manage complex contracts. Greater voluntary collaborative work between regional procurement bodies can open up access to specialist procurement skills to help to tackle this problem.

On fraud, we found little hard evidence of significant fraud, but widespread unease that, as more services are put out to tender, local authorities are at much greater risk. Councils must not “let and forget” contracts, but proactively tackle fraud throughout the lifetime of a contract, not just during the tender phase. Contracts let by public bodies must be transparent and performance against them auditable. We support the Government’s commitment to open-book accounting. Councils should consider placing similar requirements on information provision by contractors as applied to a public body under freedom of information regulations to provide a level playing field. We heard that one of the best means of identifying fraud was whistleblowing. More needs to be done to support whistleblowers and the Government must publicise arrangements for an anonymous reporting channel.

The measures set out in our report will help to achieve a vision of better procurement and commissioning from local councils. We hope that the Government, local government sector leaders and individual councils will pay heed to our recommendations.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I welcome the statement and the contribution we have all made to the report. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we uncovered many examples of good practice, but that no authority is doing all those things? We desperately need to ensure that examples of good practice are followed by all local authorities, so that every resident benefits from the good practice of the best authorities.

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely. That was the theme right the way through the inquiry. There is a lot of good work out there and the best way to persuade local authorities to change is to show them another local authority that is doing things in a better way. That is why the LGA is key to delivering improvements; with many of our reports, that is probably not the case. We are looking to the LGA and the Department for Communities and Local Government to work together to set up a taskforce to bring examples of good practice together and disseminate them to councils up and down the country.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that.

I shall come on to some of the issues that every local authority in the country should be examining. Are they using their procurement capability properly? Have they joined with other local authorities to procure services, such as adult social care, using their buying power instead of competing one on one for the private sector services that are available? Have they shared their services across the various councils that operate within their area? Very few local authorities have done that.

Have local authorities fundamentally restructured the services that they deliver, to eliminate multiple handling? The vast majority of councils handle a multitude of grant applications and applications for different services, yet that information is input for every single service, so we have a multiplicity of inputs coming from the most needy families. That means that we employ in local government far too many people to repeat the handling of those cases. Those services should be simplified so that the vulnerable in society supply their data only once and then benefit from whatever services the local authority provides. Has the local authority properly considered outsourcing its services? There are direct suppliers that can deliver those services, often at a fraction of the cost of the public sector.

[Mr Betts]

One of the problems with outsourcing that many councils find, including mine in Sheffield, is that when they have to make cuts to a contract that was agreed some years ago, the cost of changing it can be considerable, and they have less flexibility to adjust services under the new financial constraints than if they had employed people directly, in-house.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. One of the necessary aspects of outsourcing is making sure that local authorities work on a partnership basis, rather than just by the letter of the law as set out in the contract. Far too many local authorities are not smart enough in the way they write procurement contracts to make them fit for purpose. By ensuring that contracts are demonstrated and written in the right sort of way, flexibility can be built in and services maintained.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Bob Blackman

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but we have to consider cause and effect. I do not decry what the last Government instructed local authorities to do, but the key point is that it failed. The areas of deprivation then are still the areas of deprivation. This Government are trying to introduce a direct incentive to business growth and economic growth in those areas and right across the country. They are giving local authorities an opportunity to change their view and see the direct incentive to have economic growth. Local authorities will keep the money, which they can then invest in the local services that people need. That does not mean that there is not a need for national investment in local areas when infrastructure improvements and regeneration are needed, but that is very different from creating economic growth.

[Mr Betts]

There is a danger that we will get locked into a discussion in which we simply assume that the current system has always been in place. Prior to the poll tax local authorities kept all their business rates, yet since 1945 and probably before, the difference and disparities in deprivation have continued to grow. Local economies in different parts of the country have performed very differently, despite local authorities having had the incentive of business rate retention prior to the poll tax. The hon. Gentleman’s argument therefore lacks a little if it is taken beyond the particular complications of the current system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

One of the key historical points is that local authorities used to set their own business rates, but then pressure from the House changed that situation for the simple reason that large local authorities saw the opportunity to milk businesses and set exorbitant rates, because business did not have a vote. They could then keep local tax low because they had increased business rates to milk businesses. That was why the national business rates were introduced.

I do not believe that there is an argument for changing the position so that local authorities determine the level of business rates, but there is a very strong argument, which the Government are advancing, for their retaining the money that is collected locally. I believe that the Government are being a bit timid in their approach, because I would like more money to be retained locally, possibly with a slightly less complex formula to make it more transparent. However, I recognise that the Government are taking the first step along the way.

[Mr Betts]

I intervene briefly on a factual point about what happened prior to the poll tax. Probably one of the reasons why it was brought in was the very large rate increases made by some authorities, such as the one in Sheffield of which I was a member at the time. It is not true that authorities sought to pile all the pain on businesses and keep their other taxes low. Actually, the domestic and non-domestic rates were linked and could be increased only in line with each other. It was not possible to increase one without increasing the other. Domestic ratepayers had a vote, of course, and in many cases were prepared to vote for large increases to protect services.

[Bob Blackman]

That, of course, is local democracy—if people want to pay higher taxes, they are welcome to do so. I am personally a great advocate of annual elections to local authorities instead of referendums, so that if councillors want to raise local taxes exorbitantly they will be voted out at the ballot box. I therefore take the hon. Gentleman’s point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

That is exactly my second point. In large parts of the country, particularly in suburbia, there has been a gradual leakage of businesses, as business land—areas designated for business land and investment—have been turned over to housing. There is an incentive for local authorities to do that, because it increases the council tax base and makes it easier for local authorities to get new homes bonus money. It does, however, reduce the business rate income. At the moment, those local authorities suffer no penalty for doing that.

Under the new system, there can still be a leakage of land and employers. I am talking not about a catastrophic failure where one major employer closes down—that would obviously be a huge loss to the local authority—but a gradual process, over a number of years, under which industrial land has been turned over to housing, resulting in a leakage in business rate income. Has the Minister considered that point? How will it be looked at in the round? I raised the matter on Second Reading but so far we have not had an answer.

Finally, one thing that will be true in this brave new world is that there are risks associated with both the income and expenditure of local authorities. We know that there are huge numbers of demand-led services that every local authority must provide—they have been mentioned already: adult social care, children’s care, and so on—and I recognise that. It is also the case that income levels can sometimes be unpredictable. The more predictable they are, the better. However, there is the pooling approach. I wonder whether the Minister can say what directions will be given if certain local authorities just sit back and say, “We’re alright, Jack. We’re fine. We’ll just keep the money. We’re not going to pool our risk. We’re not going to pool our opportunity. We won’t co-operate with our neighbours.” That is an important point, which the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) raised. How will the Government direct local authorities to pool resources, in order to spread risk across a number of authorities?

[Mr Betts]

I want to speak about set-aside—the principle and the calculations—and, in particular, to draw attention to my amendments 44 and 45. This is the first opportunity that I have had during the Committee stage to talk about the new, simplified system of local government finance that the Government are proposing. [Interruption.] Is that a smile from the Minister? We have to have a laugh about the terminology, but it was the terminology that the Secretary of State used when introducing the consultation proposals. He called it a simplified system, but I do not think that anybody, even—