Rewiring the State

Debate between Clive Betts and Louise Haigh

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

The Prime Minister set out how he plans to cut tax on the very first day of his premiership. I thank the shadow Secretary for his kind words. My title is First Secretary of State; he may wish to be the shadow deputy Prime Minister, but that would not be shadowing me.

I am glad that we can find common ground. I will start with the cost of No. 10 North, which I imagine the hon. Gentleman knows already, given the sheer quantity of parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests that have come in over the summer. No. 10 North has been fully funded from existing Cabinet Office budgets, with no additional spending pressure. We are grateful to colleagues in Manchester for hosting us in Heron House so graciously; that is working exceptionally well.

I absolutely agree—I hope we can work together on this—with the hon. Gentleman on looking at where we can streamline the state and ensuring that elected Governments of any stripe can make the decisions that they have been elected to take. There is an awful lot of common ground and frustration that people from across this House share about unelected regulators and quangos standing in the way of democratically elected politicians. There is a serious commitment from this Government to tearing away that red tape and ensuring that we can deliver the change that we were elected to deliver. I therefore gently point out the irony in his asking me to ensure that a quango, the Local Government Boundary Commission, takes decisions on local government reorganisation, rather than the democratically elected Communities Secretary.

We have already been clear that the central civil service is expected to shrink, that we want it to be more streamlined and efficient, and that our commitment to devolution and rewiring the state absolutely means fewer civil servants at the centre and building the capacity and capability of regional and local government. Local government was a huge victim of the decade of austerity, which held back growth in our local economies.

We are moving policy functions out of the Cabinet Office in order to streamline things and ensure that we can be ruthlessly committed to delivering the Prime Minister’s priorities; I make no apologies for that. We have transferred a number of strategic functions into No. 10 North, including local economic growth and devolution strategy, which we have moved from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and local economic growth policy, which we have moved from the Treasury; that is a little bit of a chip at its empire.

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

I offer two congratulations: first, to my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the First Secretary, on her well-deserved promotion—I am sure she will do an excellent job. Secondly, I congratulate her and the Prime Minister for their real commitment to devolution, which I have wanted to see for an awfully long time. I hope it is devolution to local councils, as first-tier authorities, as well as to strategic authorities.

One area that has not been covered so far is education. The First Secretary is probably aware that in five wards in my constituency with high levels of deprivation, there is not a single sixth form. Responsibility for that rests totally with academy trusts, and the local council has no power or influence over it whatsoever. When she looks again at devolution to bodies with democratic control, could she look at the education system? That will be key to tackling the problem of those not in education, employment or training.

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and my constituency shares that exact same problem: in the east, there are fewer sixth-form options than in the wealthier west of the constituency. That is huge issue for educational inequality for our constituents, and I will take it away and look at it with the Education Secretary. My hon. Friend will also note that we have committed to devolution of 16-to-19 funding as well.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Debate between Clive Betts and Louise Haigh

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)]

Despite being a lifelong Barnsley supporter, I am still grateful to my hon. Friend for hosting the Sheffield Wednesday supporters’ trust yesterday and for his leadership on this issue. What was reflected back to us by the supporters’ trust is how unfair the current situation is. Clubs—and therefore the fans—are punished when irresponsible owners like the current owner of Sheffield Wednesday, Chansiri, behave appallingly and do not put the fans first.

[Mr Betts]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will turn in a second to what the EFL can do now.

For all that the Minister has been helpful in explaining what the regulator’s powers will be, the problem is that we are left in the meantime without a regulator and doubts about what the EFL can do in that regard. My hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) and for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) will be very much involved with the Reading supporters’ trust and can tell us all the problems that they have experienced. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) has similar problems with her club. There have been similar problems for Derby and its fans, as hon. Friends will know, and the Secretary of State will know about Wigan.

The situation at Sheffield Wednesday is dire. The owner has failed to pay wages for three months over the course of this year. That affects not just the players—some of whom may be well off, while others are not; the administrative staff, clerks and all those people have not been paid for two months in some cases. The owner has not paid His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on two occasions. It is clear that he is simply running out of money.

What actions can the EFL take? We welcome the investigation that it is now conducting into what is going on at Hillsborough, but it is clear that although Chansiri was funding the club to the tune of about £10 million a year, he has now run out of money. Rob Brookes of the Wednesday supporters’ trust has done a brilliant analysis of Chansiri’s companies in Thailand, which are, by and large, now losing money. He is not able to fund the club, so where has the money been coming from to keep it going for the past two or three years? Has he borrowed it? If so, who has he borrowed it from? What are the conditions on that borrowing? Are the people who lent him the money now effectively running the club and telling Chansiri that he cannot sell it? He has turned down many approaches to sell the club and is demanding ridiculous prices for it. Has the money been borrowed from reputable sources? I do not know; I am not making an accusation. The only person who can clarify this awful situation is Mr Chansiri himself, but he will not comment on it.

We welcome the EFL investigation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) says, we want the EFL to find out what is happening, and to be transparent and open about what it knew about the whole issue. Why, when Chansiri produced a business plan in March, did the EFL accept it? How far did it question that plan? Having given the EFL a business plan saying that he was financially sustainable, he failed to pay wages hours later. He had two five-hour engagements with the fans and never once mentioned his problems funding the club.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley said, what we do not want is for the EFL to come in and its only actions be to punish the club with transfer embargoes and points deductions to the point where a sustainable sale to someone else is not possible. I say to the EFL: you are the only hope we have until the regulator comes in, so please work with the fans’ trust and others to find the best way forward. Tell us what you knew and what you know now, and expose what Chansiri has been doing, because it is an absolute disgrace that a club of Sheffield Wednesday’s stature should be reduced to this situation.

We have heard today that, because of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, Sheffield city council has issued a directive that unless work is done on the north stand roof, it will close part of the ground come the start of the season, but the club has known about that for three years. This is an appalling situation. I ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to talk to the EFL about how far they can work with them to save the situation.

I welcome the Minister for Sport’s letters to me, the commitment to fan engagement and the commitment on the FSA’s role going forward, but the regulator must have the powers to intervene if it feels that external competitions such as the club world cup interfere with our domestic competitions. I thank her very much for her engagement right through this process.

Local Government and Social Care Funding

Debate between Clive Betts and Louise Haigh

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Commons Chamber

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

As the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I think the importance that Select Committees have attached to the issue of social care is shown in the amount of time we spend on inquiries on the issue. We have recently published three reports on adult social care, the last of which was done jointly with the Health and Social Care Committee last year. They were all unanimously agreed by our Committee, and in the latter case by the Committees jointly. We are currently inquiring into children’s social care, with the report due out next week. Those four social care inquiries show how important the issue is for the Committee and for local government as a whole.

As a Sheffield MP, I have to comment on the fact that my city and constituency have received funding cuts that are far higher than the average percentage in the past nine years, since 2010. Like other northern cities, we have been disproportionately hit, as cities with the greatest problems and needs have seen the Government cut their grants by the biggest percentage.

Putting all that to one side, if I look at the wider context, I see real problems for local government, because as a whole local government has had bigger cuts by percentage than any other area of Government spending. That has united councils of all political persuasions in their concerns about the unfair effect those spending cuts have had on local government as a whole. This comes at a time when demand for the main local authority services—care services—has been rising. The number of elderly people has been growing, which has meant that the number of elderly people who need care has been growing. That is great, because people are living longer. The number of people of working age with disabilities—an element of care that we should not forget—has also been growing, which is another success. In percentage terms, the demand for children’s services is going up faster than demand for any other current aspect of local government spending, so that comes on top of what I have described, too.

Those three rising demands mean that despite the fact that more people are in need of elderly care, according to Age Concern some 1.5 million people are not getting it. The threshold has been raised such that people with lower and moderate needs are now excluded from the care systems. People are ending up in hospital who should not be there because prevention is not happening, and people in hospital are not being discharged as quickly as they should be. We see all these things happening as a result.

The pressures on social care are causing other issues. With rising demand and spending on social care, as the cake has shrunk, the proportion of it spent on social care has grown, so the amount spent on other services has proportionately been cut by even more. The National Audit Office has done the figures, and they were given to the Select Committee: cultural and related services have seen a 35% cut; highways services and transport have seen a 37% cut; housing services, including homelessness and private sector housing, have seen a 45% cut; environmental and regulatory services have been cut by 16%; and planning has been cut by 50%. Those are massive cuts to the basic services on which we all rely day to day.

I worry about all that, because although it is of course important that councils concentrate on care, most people in the country do not receive care for themselves or for people in their families on a daily, regular basis; they rely on other services. They are seeing their council tax bills rise and what they get for their money fall. That is a real challenge and problem for local democracy. People are paying more but not getting any more. We ought to be very concerned about that indeed. It needs to be addressed in the widest sense.

I refer to the comments made by Councillor Paul Carter, but people from the Local Government Association, the County Councils Network, the District Councils’ Network, London Councils, and SIGOMA, the special interest group of municipal authorities, have made similar comments. Every council organisation has said that the current situation simply cannot continue and that we need a fundamental change in the amount of money provided for local government in the next spending review. The Select Committee will do an inquiry into that, which will hopefully give Ministers the ammunition with which to badger and berate the Treasury when they have discussions at that level.

We know from the estimates, which no one from the Government has challenged, that by the end of the next spending review children’s services are likely to be £3 billion adrift of the funding they need. Social care for the elderly is already £2 billion adrift, with estimates that the average annual increase required to keep pace with demand is around £800,000. That takes us to around £7 billion adrift.

The quality of care is often forgotten about. We need not only to continue to meet the increase in demand, but to do something to improve quality. If demand is going to increase, we are going to have to recruit more staff, and if we recruit more staff, we are going to have to pay them and train them better, otherwise, we will not be able to retain them. So the costs are going to go up even further.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I speak as a co-chair of the all-party group on social care. Next week, we are launching an inquiry into the professionalisation of the social care workforce. My hon. Friend is making an important point about recruitment and retention and the need for more funding. The pressures and demands on funding are leading to a reduction in the professionalisation of the workforce, and as a result to reductions in the quality of care.

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely. The joint Committee report made the point that the quality of care is so important, and we have to think about the quality of the workforce and how much we pay them. The average social care worker gets paid 29% less than someone doing a similar job in the NHS. That figure demonstrates the challenge that we face.

What are we looking at, then? We have recently had a few welcome sticking plasters of funding from the Government; but next time, we will need a very large bandage, not just a few sticking plasters, to put this issue right. We look forward to the Green Paper, at some point on the horizon. Perhaps the Minister can tell us about the timing for that when she replies, but even now time is now too short for there to be a fundamental change in funding arrangements. We are going to need a lot more of the same.

The two Select Committees recommended that, at the funding review, we take the £7 billion extra that will be in the local government system from the 75% business rates retention and, instead of using it to replace public health grants and other forms of grant, we put it back into the system to deal with the problems of social care. That money can be there and we will not have to change the system. That can be done. We also proposed changes to make the council tax system fairer and less regressive. We can do those things for the next spending review and make sure that a quantum of money—around £7 billion— is available for social care. That would then relieve the pressure on other council services.

We then looked at what the longer-term system should look like. Of course, we need better integration at a local level between the NHS and social care. This is not about a national system of care that replaces what local authorities do; it is about better integration at local level. We must bear in mind that, while it is important that the health service and social care are linked together, the other great join-up that we must have is between housing and social care. The majority of people receiving social care live in their own home, and it is vital that we get those services linked as well.