Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Clive Betts and Lord Stunell
Andrew Stunell
These are very much matters for the local plan, which is in the hands of my hon. Friend’s planning authority. I am sure that he will also be alert to the options in the neighbourhood planning system for local communities to seek a different designation, if that is appropriate.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I do not know whether the Minister is aware that according to figures from Shelter, in 2010-11 there were 104 new affordable home starts in Sheffield, including social rented housing starts. Assuming that he will put that down to the inadequate legacy of the previous Government, is he aware that in 2011-12, the number of new affordable starts fell to two, in a city of more than half a million people? Does he accept responsibility for that, and if so, what will he do about it?
Andrew Stunell
The Homes and Communities Agency significantly exceeded its corporate plan target for last year. It delivered 51,665 new affordable homes, of which 33,000 were for social rent, and that is in very stark contrast with the Labour Government’s performance; they reduced the number of social homes available for rent by 421,000.
Council Tax Benefit Localisation
Debate between Clive Betts and Lord Stunell(11 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Stunell
No, I will not give way on any points, because I want to proceed.
In another part of the Local Government Finance Bill, we are giving Wigan metropolitan borough the capacity to change its current discounts and exemptions for empty homes and second homes. Wigan metropolitan borough, which I am sure the hon. Member for Makerfield would agree has considerable social and economic problems, will be able to raise £2,173,854, if it chooses to exercise its discretion fully. The difference between those two figures is £43,000 in Wigan’s favour; under the Bill, it will have capacity to raise more revenue than it will lose.
That important point very much undermines the arguments made by a number of Members. It brings a sense of reality—[Laughter.] The nature of things is that very few Members of Parliament have detailed experience of local government finance systems; they are highly dependent on the advice they receive from local authorities and their senior finance officers. If Opposition Members asked their individual local authorities how much they would be able to increase their income if they took advantage of the Bill’s proposed discounts and exemption changes, I think that, almost without exception, those Members would be substantially surprised.
In my remaining two minutes, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) for her comments. I welcome her back, because she has been absent from the House for some time. She has not lost her touch. She made it very clear what she thinks about the issue and has been consistent and persistent in making her point. The authorities in Dorset and Poole can, if they choose to, offset the reduction in support for council tax benefit via changes to the exemptions that they levy.
The hon. Member for Makerfield made a point about the schemes that local authorities will introduce, but I am sure that it will be obvious to her that Wigan can continue with exactly the same scheme as it has now, if it wishes to do so. If it continues with that scheme, it will not need the guidance and support that we have already issued to local authorities on all the relevant matters. Indeed, some local authorities are already carrying out public consultations on alternative schemes and will have them in place by 1 April.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Clive Betts and Lord Stunell
Andrew Stunell
The flexibility on discounts will apply to all empty homes from day one, not just to those that have been empty for two years. The two-year condition relates to the empty homes premium, which is a separate provision that is being put in the hands of councils by the Bill.
The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made some interesting points, but he did not seem to be aware that, whereas Wokingham has the capacity to generate £700,000 extra income, Wigan, which he mentioned specifically, has the capacity to generate £2.2 million from the discounts. If Wigan chose to implement those measures, that would completely offset the funding gap he talked about.
To be clear, much of the shroud-waving from the Opposition is completely misplaced. It was strange that the hon. Member for North Durham argued—although he tried to back out of it—for additional cuts in council tax benefit for pensioners, because he wants councils to have the flexibility to switch their spending on pensioners to others whom he thinks are more worthy of protection. That is a point of view, but it is not one that the Government share.
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). He served time in the Treasury, during which I believe he was party to the introduction of the 10p tax rate—[Interruption.] We all have skeletons we wish we could keep in the cupboard. When it comes to protecting the low-paid, it is this Government who have raised tax thresholds for low-paid people, many of whom are women, of course, and will take 2 million people out of tax over the next three years.
The right hon. Gentleman did get round to welcoming the localism measure, but—not for the first time—he wants localism, but not yet. The Opposition do not have a strong track record on localism, but they have realised just how important it is to the people we represent. They now pay lip service to it at every opportunity, but I see no sign that it goes beyond lip service to their agreeing to implement localism in practice. At every turn, they try to delay, dismantle and divert the successful attempts of the Government to localise decision making and give local communities the power to take decisions about their services.
I answered the right hon. Gentleman regarding Rotherham’s figures. He mentioned Barnsley, and its figures are an almost exactly equal balance, just slightly in favour of Barnsley, with £1.6 million in each direction. He also waxed lyrical about the new clause 2 single person discount. Some 29% of households are single person, and another 7% are single-parent households. I do not believe that he would want to put those people under additional pressure. The Government do not accept that new clause 2 is the way forward.
The right hon. Gentleman also made an interesting point, of the kind that only a former Secretary of State might make, about what would happen if a council tax referendum failed and the impact that would have on the scheme. The scheme that a local authority sets up by 31 January each year will have statutory force and cannot be changed for the following 12 months, so it would be required to be considered in any reduced budget. Of course, when a local council sets up its scheme, it will be with the full knowledge of its intended settlement. As I say, the right hon. Gentleman welcomes localism, but he does not want it yet.
I draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) one of the documents we published last week, “Localising Support for Council Tax: Vulnerable people—key local authority duties”, which sets out clearly the factors that a local authority needs to have in mind when it exercises its discretion and introduces a scheme. When she studies that, she will find that many of the questions that she raised are answered and her concerns are dealt with.
The hon. Lady commented on the introduction of the Welsh Assembly clauses. She will know from what the Government said previously that we took the time to consult with our colleagues in the Welsh Administration, and it is at their behest that the clauses take their present form. That is an example of the Government taking a measured approach, consulting with the relevant bodies and introducing proposals entirely in accordance with the Welsh Administration’s views.
The hon. Lady also drew attention to an amendment on consulting with those affected. There is a requirement on local authorities, when they have drawn up their scheme, to consult with those whom they believe will be affected. That clearly will involve a consultation with all the groups the hon. Lady mentioned.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I apologise for not being here earlier, but I was at a Select Committee meeting.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) apparently raised the point about the time local authorities will have to propose a scheme, consult on it—as the Minister has just described—and then get their providers of services, such as Capita, to design the schemes and implement them. In January, Capita raised concerns about the time constraints that it would face and its real worry that it would have inadequate time to do that. Is the Minister convinced that local authorities will have adequate time and that there will be no problems with the delivery of services to constituents?
Andrew Stunell
That is exactly why we produced the statements of intent—to give local authorities and their providers the longest possible time to understand how they might best design and develop a scheme. That is also why we have provided a significant sum of money to assist them in doing that.
The hon. Member for Warrington North also asked about criminal offences being created by the Bill. The Social Security Administration Act 1992 creates several criminal offences in relation to council tax benefit, including an offence of dishonestly making a false statement and one of knowingly making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining council tax benefit. There is a different standard of proof for each offence, as I suspect that the hon. Lady knows better than I do. Greater penalties apply if it can be shown that a person has acted dishonestly.
National Planning Policy Framework
Debate between Clive Betts and Lord Stunell
Andrew Stunell
I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful contribution. It is one of a large number of well informed and important points that have been made during this debate, not least of course by my right hon. Friend the Minister when he said that the local plan is the keystone to our reform process. The local plan of the planning authority will be the guideline for development decisions in an area, with the neighbourhood plan of course forming an important statutory part in those areas that have plans in place.
Andrew Stunell
The Chair of the Committee—incidentally, it made an extremely important contribution to our consideration of these matters—makes an important point. I say to him and to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) that as the targets went up under the last Government so the performance of housing went down. The idea that there is some connection between top-down, top-driven targets and performance on the ground is not supported by the evidence. What we maintain—and as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and others—is that there is clear evidence that when local communities are put in the driving seat they fully understand the need for homes and jobs for their children and grandchildren, as well as parks and recreation spaces.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Clive Betts and Lord Stunell(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Stunell
Of course, it would be sensible to debate that matter when we come to the next group of amendments, and I look forward to it. I want to make it clear, however, that the Bill states that if a local authority has failed by 31 January next year to put in place a scheme, by default the existing scheme will continue, and that is what the Secretary of State has the power to ensure happens.
Amendment 85 would require the Government to carry out the new burdens assessment, but we are already committed to doing that. We must be clear that local authorities do the job that they have been set. They have the opportunities to raise money in alternative ways and to devise a scheme that is suitable to their circumstances. As for the administrative cost, we have already made it clear that we will be fully following the new burdens doctrine that this Government have set out. The Government will therefore be working with local authorities to assess the net impact of housing benefit centralisation and the localisation of support for council tax, including the transitional costs, which will be covered, where necessary, by the new burdens doctrine.
Mr Betts
The Minister talks about working with local authorities. Presumably the Government have a view about that, despite what they say local authorities might be able to achieve by way of extra revenue generation. He has already admitted that at least a quarter of authorities cannot raise enough money to offset what they have lost under the scheme that we are discussing. Does he therefore accept that non-pensioners in those authorities—which are likely to be the poor authorities, with the highest percentage of people claiming council tax benefit—are going to suffer what the Local Government Association predicts will be cuts of around £6 a week?
Andrew Stunell
No, I absolutely do not accept that. The average reduction if local authorities do not put any extra funding into the pot, from any source at all, is £2.64 per household per week. Every local authority—even those that do not have complete recompense of the one pot of money from the other—will still get significant inputs from the discount scheme, which local authorities can, if they choose, take into account. I therefore ask the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) to withdraw his amendment, and I ask my hon. Friends to vote against it if he does not.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Clive Betts and Lord Stunell(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Stunell
The Secretary of State has made the Government’s point of view clear. He believes—and I believe—that local authorities and precepting authorities should behave with responsibility in these difficult times. I am sure that his words will have been heard, and I am happy to underline them from the Dispatch Box.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that localising council tax benefits in 2013 and cutting Government support by 10% will mean that if authorities that are strapped for cash cannot put extra money into the benefits scheme, if pensioners cannot have their benefits altered, and if councils have to take account of the tapers for people in work, those on council tax benefit who are out of work will see those benefits effectively cut by over 20%?
Andrew Stunell
First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for our localising the council tax benefit? Secondly, I do not recognise or accept that figure. If he looks at the impact assessment, he will see that he has grossly overstated the facts. In fact, the average weekly reduction in support will be £2.64 per household. I believe that is the right figure to be quoting in the House, not the one that he chose to use.
Localism Bill
Debate between Clive Betts and Lord Stunell(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Stunell
I think the hon. Gentleman might be confusing different processes. The Standards Board regime applied to councillors at parish, district and county level. We are sweeping away the Standards Board and making sure that local authorities put in place sound and sensible provision to safeguard the integrity of themselves and the members who serve on them.
To return to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), district councils do not have to monitor parish councils. They do need to have in place arrangements to deal with allegations of misconduct by a parish councillor, but how they do that is up to them. We will expect district councils and parishes to work together to make arrangements as simple as possible.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the Government at last recognise they may have some responsibility for appropriate standards being maintained in local councils. Can the Minister give an assurance, however, that where there is a serious complaint against a chief executive or leader of a council—perhaps about bullying of a junior member of staff or another councillor—the complainant will receive as robust an investigation into those complaints as under the current regime that the Government seek to abolish?
Andrew Stunell
Absolutely. We are clearly setting out what councils have to do and have in place, and the safeguard that they are required to provide.
On the application of the standards regime in London, we took the opportunity on Lords Report to make amendments 16 to 19, 28, 37, 408, 411 and 413, which ensure that the Mayor of London and the Greater London assembly are given equal roles in and responsibility for promoting and maintaining high standards, rather than leaving that function to be discharged by the assembly alone. The amendments also allow the assembly and Mayor to delegate functions to a committee or member of staff.
With these amendments, taken as a whole, we have achieved a balanced approach to the promotion and maintenance of high standards of conduct, with local authorities determining for themselves how best to achieve that. They will be freed up from the top-down, bureaucratic yoke of a national regime, of a model code and of a quango-regulated regime that became a vehicle for petty, vindictive and often politically motivated complaints. Our approach, which balances localism with safeguards, is the right one to ensure accountability locally and consistently high standards right across the country.
This group also contains a number of more minor amendments, many of them technical in nature, but I will mention one because it will be of particular interest to Labour Members. Lords amendments 38 to 43 introduce measures intended to increase accountability on local authority decisions about pay and reward. During the Commons’ consideration, Labour Members welcomed these provisions, as far as they went, on senior pay and asked us to go further to see how the Bill could bring similar levels of accountability on the pay of the rest of an authority’s work force. We committed to do so, particularly in the light of Will Hutton’s review of fair pay in the public sector, which made several recommendations. Following the representations that we have received, and with that report as the background, we made amendments in the Lords which have the effect of expanding the scope of pay policy statements to include an authority’s policies towards its lowest-paid staff, as well as the relationship between the pay of its most senior staff and the rest of its work force. I hope that Labour Members will agree that these sensible changes broaden the scope of the measures to capture the spirit of their comments and the Hutton recommendations.
In summary, this group of amendments will radically reduce the prescription bearing down on local authorities, freeing them up to serve their local communities better. I wish to pay tribute to the way in which hon. Members from all parties have—in Committee and on Report in this House, and in the other place—engaged with this part of the legislation to deliver a much-improved Bill. I urge the House to agree to these Lords amendments, and I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendment (a) to a Division.
Localism Bill
Debate between Clive Betts and Lord Stunell(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Stunell
No, that is not correct. Let us be clear that the tenure standards will provide specific protection for the vulnerable. We have already said that in our response to the consultation, and the consultation responses themselves show that the vast majority of landlords will provide longer terms.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Does the Minister have any practical examples? He has talked about long waiting lists for family houses, but there are actually long waiting lists for pensioners’ accommodation, too. If a couple in their 60s, whose children have left home, were on a flexible tenancy, the local authority could ask them to move. If no pensioner accommodation was available, as bungalows are in very short supply in many areas, that couple could be forced to move into a block of flats where the majority of people were young single people or young couples with a completely different lifestyle. Is that the sort of situation that he envisages? If not, will he say precisely where in the guidelines it states that the regulator will stop a local authority or housing association doing that?
Andrew Stunell
The tenure standards will set that out, the housing strategy of the local housing authority will reinforce it and the tenancy policy of the provider, if it is not the housing authority itself, will also set it out.
I want to make some progress and move on to a second issue that is, I know, of real concern to Members: the provisions on homelessness. Much of the debate on our homelessness proposals started off from the proposition that landlords of private rented property are a rogue sector and incapable of offering decent quality accommodation to those families who might benefit from it. I made it clear in Committee, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government on a number of occasions, that the draft legislation includes a number of safeguards that together provide reassurances that an offer of private accommodation would be made only when it is reasonable to do so and when the accommodation is suitable for the needs of the household.
It is important to go back to why we are making the changes in the first place. It is not because we want to make the plight of homeless families worse, but because we want to make their situation better. In London, the average stay in temporary accommodation of resettled homeless families before they get a permanent offer of social accommodation is two years. The impact of that time on schooling, quality of life, health and stress is not acceptable and needs to be tackled. I agree with the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) that this probably is not a countrywide problem, and I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) does not have the problem, because he has 2,500 empty houses to begin with, but in places of high housing stress it is a real problem. That is why we are making these proposals.
In Committee and elsewhere, hon. Members have raised a number of concerns about the homelessness measures. Some of those focused on standards of accommodation in the private rented sector, the interplay that there might be with housing benefit changes and related issues of affordability. There were also concerns about the location of those private rented sector homes, and whether there might be some loophole in creating intentional homelessness. I want to respond to each of those points in due course.
Andrew Stunell
I understand that that would be very welcome, but at the moment I am not convinced of the need for councils to follow that rule. I remind my hon. Friend that ALMOs are completely the creatures of local government, but the tenant participation in ALMOs is a positive feature. The ALMO covering my constituency works well and is well regarded, but even so it is a matter for the local authority. It is not appropriate for a Minister or the Secretary of State to get in the driving seat, but it is right for us to give careful consideration to the guidance, particularly on the ballot point.
Mr Betts
I follow the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) in his request for a ballot in all cases, because that would give us the security of a proper consultation. Changing so fundamentally the management of a tenant’s home is almost as important as changing its ownership, and we should give weight to that. If the Minister is not prepared to go that far, but is simply going to look at “ballot in, ballot out”, which at least would be a step forward, and again at the guidance on consultation, will he have a real look at how the guidance might be underpinned statutorily so that, before an ALMO is allowed to be changed and moved back into a local authority, the Secretary of State can insist that real consultation takes place and tenants’ views are listened to? That does not happen at the moment.
Andrew Stunell
Yes. It is important that we review the guidance—I just said that we should do so—and it would be an unusual local authority that disregarded it. I undertake to reflect further on the best way forward, and I hope that my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman feel that that is a step forward which allows them not to press their amendments today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) has tabled new clause 26, which relates to a specific situation for fully mutual housing co-operatives. By a quirk of the legislation, they are caught by the houses in multiple occupation requirement for licensing and, sometimes, planning permission. The Department has been lobbied by the Friendly Housing Action campaign group to secure an exemption for fully mutual housing co-operatives, and I am very sympathetic to the campaign, as such organisations were never intended to be caught by the licensing provisions.
We have to be careful to ensure that in granting an exemption we do not inadvertently allow other categories to slip through the loophole, so I am asking for further advice on how we might achieve that. I hope to return to the issue at a later stage, so I hope that my hon. Friends will not feel the need to press new clause 26 to a Division.
I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) for new clauses 25 and 24, which she and her hon. Friends have tabled. They both relate to cases in which courts made decisions that the common-sense man would not have expected. New clause 25 refers to a situation in which the housing allocation scheme was perverted—I think that is the right word—by an officer, and consequently the courts decided that, because of the nature of the current legislation, it was not possible to recover the properties that had been misallocated. I am certainly minded to take some steps in the right direction. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government recently launched a 10-point plan for tackling council fraud, and that included vetting staff. I hope that that means that it is very unlikely that the situation will recur, but we are going to look at how we might move forward. On a rather significant technical point, the place where Opposition Members have chosen to insert the words means that the provision would apply only to Wales; I suspect that that is not what they really meant to do.
New clause 24 deals with a situation where a death was concealed at the transfer of a tenancy and therefore a vital time line was missed and it then proved impossible to correct that. The new clause changes the time limit restrictions so that when a local authority seeks to repossess a property, the date at which it became aware of the change in circumstances, rather than the actual date of the circumstances, will be relevant. I fully accept the point drawn to our attention. We will explore the issue in more detail and talk to various local authorities and representative bodies with a view to tabling a Government amendment in the other place. I hope that the hon. Lady feels that that is a helpful way for us to proceed.
I cannot be so consensual on other amendments tabled by the Opposition. I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I must say that we have a considerable mixture of amendments of one type or another, to which I will perhaps respond in my final 16 seconds, if that is how it turns out. Some of them are direct negatives of our proposals in the Bill, some are wrecking amendments to one degree or another, and some are quite seductive in their tone, if not their impact. Several of them duplicate safeguards that are already in the Bill or even in legislation as it has stood for some time.
Some of the amendments seem to be based on an Opposition view that social landlords are even worse than they think private landlords are, with their principal business being to get people out of their homes as quickly as possible. Of course, that is not the primary purpose or intention of social landlords, which is to provide suitable accommodation for those who need it, as will continue to be the situation in future. Other amendments seem to be more about whipping up misunderstanding among vulnerable families than about making a contribution towards solving the heartrending problems of homelessness.
I urge hon. Friends and other Members to support the Government’s sensible and thoughtful proposals and to reject the many temptations offered by the Opposition.
Mr Betts
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. These measures are changing the status of council tenants, downgrading them almost to second-class citizens. That is what this effectively means, and it is creating a form of welfare housing. There will be people who are so desperate for security that they will over-extend themselves in trying to become owner-occupiers, which could lead to real problems. I say to the Liberal Democrats that they should not hide behind the idea that the measures are all right because existing tenants will not be affected or because local authorities will have to choose whether to go for these forms of tenancies. The reality is that, currently, as long as people abide by the rules, they cannot be evicted from council or housing association properties—they cannot have their tenancy ended by their landlord—but under the Bill that will be possible, and if Liberal Democrats vote for the provisions, they will be allowing that to happen.
Let me say one thing about the homelessness provisions. It might surprise some to hear that I am not, in principle, against local authorities being able to discharge their homelessness responsibilities by making an offer in the private rented sector, but I do want to see clear safeguards. If a house becomes available in my constituency, where some areas have very limited social housing, it is by no means apparent to me that someone who has just become homeless should get that property as opposed to someone who has been in the private rented sector waiting on a housing list for six years. However, if an offer is made, it has to be made with the standards of the private rented property being approved by the local authority, with the landlord or their agent being part of an accredited scheme—probably with regular inspections to make sure that the property is kept to a reasonable standard—and with a minimum tenancy length. I would certainly want those conditions to be included.
Finally, let me address new clause 3, which is in my name. I heard the Minister’s comments but I still feel that a ballot is the best way of ensuring that the views of ALMO tenants are really taken into account and that we do not simply have consultations in which the tenants say one thing and the local authority does another, which are already happening. A ballot is the best way forward, but if the Minister is saying that the same process that was used to set up an ALMO should be used to dismantle it, he must firm up the guidance and make it a statutory obligation for local authorities to comply with that. I see him nodding, and that is very good.
Andrew Stunell
I did give that assurance; we certainly are going to take a very close look at the point that the hon. Gentleman is raising.
Mr Betts
The Housing Minister has said that he is prepared to have a meeting with me and other officers of the parliamentary all-party group on arms length management organisations. The information we have got from the National Federation of ALMOs, with which we recently had a very good meeting, shows that, in a number of cases, local authorities have simply been flouting the correct processes. Councils are saying, “We are going to get rid of your ALMO; it doesn’t matter what you say—it’s going.” They are then putting factually inaccurate reports to housing committees. They are not offering people a real choice in the consultation, they are not explaining the facts, and they are not presenting balanced arguments. They talk about saving money on the general fund as one reason for getting rid of ALMOs. They do not refer to the new proposals on self-finance or the Government’s reforms.
All those facts are being kept from tenants in unbalanced, one-sided consultations. I hear what the Minister says. I shall not press the new clause, and I look forward to further discussions with him and his colleagues about the best way of constructing the measure to get the best deal for ALMO tenants and to ensure that in the end they make the decisions which affect their homes.
Housing (CSR)
Debate between Clive Betts and Lord Stunell(13 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Stunell
That, of course, is what was wrong with the targets: they built up resistance in local communities—although not in all of them, of course; colleagues in Yeovil and Chesterfield could not build the houses that they wanted because of the absurd national targets.
The hon. Lady quoted early-day motion 355. Outside Westminster tube station, the National Housing Federation has posted a plea to us all for more affordable and social homes. I want to say very clearly—I shall be saying this on many other occasions—that when it comes to producing more affordable and social homes, a party that finished up with 45,000 fewer such homes than it started out with 13 years before is not in a good position to criticise the coalition Government. When we go in five years’ time, we will leave more homes in the social sector than we started with.
The National Housing Federation briefing, which hon. Members have perhaps drawn on, says:
“Our modelling suggests that the Government’s claim that up to 150,000 homes will be delivered over the four year period is achievable”,
and it adds:
“If one in four new lettings across the sector…are made at 80% of market rent”.
The reference to “one in four” is interesting. Opposition Members imagine that the Government will impose a new model compulsorily on every housing authority. That is absolutely not the case. If the National Housing Federation, which is, let us face it, not a particularly good friend of the Government at the moment, says that we can get our 150,000 homes with a quarter of rents at an affordable level, it ill behoves Opposition Members to spread lies and deceit about the issue.
Mr Betts
Can we make sure that the Minister is telling the whole truth about this? The National Housing Federation said that the figures might be achievable if one in four new tenancies was let under the new rents, but it also said that all the new houses that were built—the whole 150,000—had to be let under the new rents. Effectively, on the Minister’s definition that we should treat as social houses only those houses that are let on existing tenures at existing rent levels, no new social houses will be built under the programme proposed by him and his colleagues. Is that not true?
Andrew Stunell
I do not really understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, because—[Laughter.] The reason I do not understand it is that it is complete nonsense. The homes that we are building will be available for affordable rent, and we have already set out some of what we want to do. However, I acknowledge straight away that hon. Members could have done with more detail, which is why we are producing a consultation document—hon. Members should note the word “consultation”—to set out many of our proposals and some options, and we are inviting opinions about how legislation should ultimately be shaped.
I was perhaps a little over-exuberant earlier when talking about how the new homes bonus will apply. It will apply to conversions, change of use and other net gains. I am quite content to confess that my adrenalin got the better of me earlier.
I need to deal with some of the other points made, so let me pick them up as best as I can. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made some important points about mortgage availability. The crucial task for the Government is to ensure that we have a sustainable and growing economy. That is absolutely at the heart of the comprehensive spending review.
Let me make it clear to colleagues that the total being invested in infrastructure is being maintained. We have reprioritised expenditure on measures that will support growth and investment in jobs—particularly green jobs—and in industry. That has come at the expense of the traditional amounts spent on housing investment. All Members probably wish that we had a larger housing programme, but our programme will deliver more homes in the social sector in the next five years than Labour did in its 13 years. That is bound to be true, given that the number under Labour fell by 45,000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) made it clear that this country has created a housing tenure model that makes little sense. On the one hand, we have people who are excluded from any opportunity of getting social housing. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, correctly said that 9,000 people in Stockport are waiting for homes. She could have added that there are only 11,000 social homes to go into. People whose names are on the list have no realistic expectation of ever getting into council housing.
We must build more social homes, and we will be building more social homes. We must use the ones we have more efficiently, and we are providing local authorities and housing associations with a way to enable them slowly to do that when homes are re-let. We are, of course, also trying to ensure that the sign outside the House in Westminster tube station is responded to, not just through an early-day motion, but through a policy that delivers more social and affordable housing, exactly as requested.
Local Government Financing
Debate between Clive Betts and Lord Stunell
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
It has been a lively debate with plenty of passionate opinions and not too many facts from those on the Opposition Benches. Thirty three hon. Members have contributed to the debate, and before I deal with as many of their points as I can, I pay tribute to the hon. Members who made maiden speeches today— the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), who demonstrated a light touch but also a determination to stick up for his constituents, and the hon. Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly), who is local and proud of it; his sense of fairness, he thinks, is embedded in his constituency.
We in the Government are under no illusion that local authorities face significant challenges, but deficit reduction and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most pressing issue facing Britain today. Given that fact, it is fair that local authorities make a contribution to that reduction in Government spending—a proportionate reduction. It will enable the Government to take immediate action to tackle the UK’s unprecedented £156 billion deficit inherited from the previous Government.
Andrew Stunell
I will give way in a moment, but let us be clear that for every £300 of income we are getting, we are spending £400 and putting the extra £100 on the credit card; £156 billion is going on the card this year, adding to £1,400,000 billion of debt. Putting that right does not guarantee recovery, but failing to put it right guarantees failure of the British economy.
No local authority will face a reduction in its revenue grant of more than 2%, where councils have received final allocations. I want to nail one of the myths that came up in the debate—the idea that the other grants somehow are tilted against the north, or the inner urban areas. The housing and planning delivery grant reduction has an impact of £1.45 per head in the metropolitan boroughs. In the shire districts, which Opposition Members thought were getting a free ride, the cost is £3.10 per head. The south-east is paying 90p a head, the north-east is paying 70p a head. Opposition Members’ charge is completely misplaced.
The £29 billion of formula grant—the main source of funding for local government—will be protected. There are no controls on how that money is spent in these reductions. The ring-fencing of non-schools revenue and capital funding is reduced from 10.6% to 7.7%.
Andrew Stunell
My point was about the £6.2 billion of cuts that have been referred to throughout the debate. The decisions on the comprehensive spending review are not mine to reveal.
Andrew Stunell
About the time that, instead of simply banks failing throughout the world, countries were failing throughout the world.
We expect councils to continue to protect essential, front-line services this year. The decision on where to make the changes to their budgets is one for them to take. We have given them the flexibility that they need to deliver that, and, with local government accounting for about one quarter of United Kingdom public sector spending, the level of cuts that they are taking is proportionate. In the context of greatly reduced public finance, it is right that all parts of the public sector bear some part of that.
Like Opposition Members, I wish that this programme were unnecessary or avoidable, but unlike them I remember my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, when he was the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, warning them time and again, year after year, Budget after Budget, that they were following a path to fiscal destruction. On uncontrolled debt, unregulated banks and unfounded public spending, they would not listen then and do not want to listen now. They hollowed out Britain’s economic base, mortgaged Britain’s financial future, gambled on the banks and blew away our manufacturing industry, and now when the bailiffs are at the end of the street, they still want to spend, spend, spend.
It is time that the Opposition got real, faced up to their catastrophic destruction of this country’s public finances, hung their heads in shame and confessed that their misplaced love affair with the casino bankers leaves this House, this Government and the British people with no choice but to tighten our belts, pick up Britain’s economy and get it going again. I urge the House to support the Government’s amendment.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.