Local Government and Social Care Funding

Debate between Clive Betts and Marcus Jones

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. It is an important debate, so I thought the tone set by the Opposition spokesman at the start was a real pity. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), ran through things in a very selective manner. It was almost as though he had been in a time machine and missed out certain periods and certain significant challenges faced by the country. He did not acknowledge the situation in which the Labour party left the public finances in 2010, with a deficit running at £150 billion a year and the Government borrowing £1 of every £4 that they spent—the taxpayer was footing the bill for that. Nor did he acknowledge that at the time, unemployment was rising and employment was going down, so people were losing their jobs.

Something had to be done, and the ship had to be steadied. We have seen the results of that, and we now have record employment, record low unemployment and rising wages. Achieving that has involved many difficult decisions. I, for one, know how hard local government has worked, the sacrifices that it has made and the sacrifices that people have made. I pay tribute to councillors across the country, and particularly to Conservative councillors, who operate better-run authorities at lower cost. I also thank council officers, who have worked extremely hard to deal with the challenges that we have faced. They have made a massive contribution to the reduction of the deficit.

I am concerned that so far, this debate has been one-sided. The hon. Gentleman talked about the reduction in revenue support grant and direct money from Government, and that has certainly happened. However, he did not mention the other side of the equation, namely business rate retention and council tax, and he tried to present a distorted picture of individual local authorities’ funding. The reality is that the authorities that he described as worse off actually have the highest spending power.

I am setting out the approach that the Opposition have taken, but I think they should instead have looked at the challenges and considered how we might address them in a sensible and measured way. I am certain in my mind that we need to put more money into local government, and the Government are starting to do so. Spending power is on the increase, and since 2017 up to £10 billion has been made available to local authorities to fund social care. The Opposition’s motion mentions £8 billion being put into social care during this Parliament, but the Government are already putting in more than that.

There are significant pressures on social care, whether it is children’s social care, where there are more looked-after children; adult social care, where we have an ageing population—that is a great thing, but it means that we have to support more people in their later years—or the important group of people of working age who require social care, such as adults with learning disabilities or people with complex needs who need support. Those groups are all growing in size, and we need to make sure that they are looked after for the future.

In addition to increasing demand, services face challenges from rising costs. The national living wage is going up, and companies now have to pay additional pension costs. That is a good thing, because it means that additional money is being paid to people who do the extremely important and difficult job of supporting the most vulnerable. We need to make sure that those employees are paid more, that they are trained well and that the job becomes more professional, so I welcome those things, but they present challenges. We need to work out in a sensible and measured way how we will pay for the additional provision that is, and will continue to be, required.

The Opposition spokesman talked about how the Labour plans for social care were blown out of the water by the Conservatives during the 2010 general election. I thought that was a bit rich, because that is exactly what the Labour party did to the Conservatives at the 2017 general election. If we are going to have a debate, let us have a sensible, measured and proper one, rather than just talking about how big our pile of cash is and listening to the other side say, “We will create a bigger pile of cash to pay for social care.”

We have to acknowledge who is going to pay for social care, and we have to get the balance right. We cannot expect young people who have just entered the labour market—people who are starting work and trying to make their way in life—to pick up the whole tab. We cannot expect older people who have worked all their lives and built up assets to lose all those assets because they need care. We have to look at the matter carefully and proportionately, and try to make sure that there is a balance. We must provide the support that people need but reward people for doing the right thing.

Clearly, local authorities provide much of social care, but we need to look at how that fits in with other social care provision. For example, I always find that continuing healthcare is a real bone of contention. The system is opaque and hard for relatives to navigate. It is hard for people to figure out why their relatives are not eligible when somebody in the neighbouring bed is eligible. It can take forever for a claim to go through. I have known a number of cases in which, unfortunately, relatives passed away some time before a continuing healthcare claim was settled.

[Mr Betts]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Anybody who has dealt with families in that position knows that money may be suddenly withdrawn after a continuing healthcare review goes through. Very often, an elderly person will be transferred to another home because they can no longer afford the one they are in. Is that not something that we need to sort out in advance of a fundamental reform of social care? It is a significant problem.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about the subject, and I certainly think that the issue he mentions needs to be looked at, as does the wider system.

We need to look at how social care works in the context of the wider health system. We need integration; we have talked about integration for years, and it does happen, but we need a system that is simple enough for people—for relatives, in particular—to understand and navigate. We need to make sure that the different parts of the system work together. Public health must work with primary care, and our GPs must work well with our acute sector. We must all work together with one common purpose, which is to keep people out of hospital for longer. That is how to improve people’s quality of life and reduce the cost to the taxpayer.

I wish to mention a small but important example from my constituency: a doctors’ surgery called Whitestone Surgery. I declare an interest because I am a patient there. I mention Whitestone because it does fantastic work through its patient participation group and social prescribing. The patient cohort in the catchment area is made up of relatively older people, and many of the patients who go into the surgery are passported through to the PPG, which runs several activity streams, including an allotment, days out and the odd visit down the pub for a meal at lunchtime. All those sorts of activities are really improving the situation in the area by reducing social isolation and loneliness. As a result of that ongoing work, the surgery is seeing the prescription of a significantly lower amount of antidepressants and fewer people being diagnosed with dementia than at other surgeries with a similar patient cohort. Warwickshire County Council is considering the work at the surgery carefully with regard to expanding it throughout Warwickshire, and studies are also being undertaken to see what merit it has more widely. I am delighted that such important work is taking place in my area. It is a good example of what we need to do to support people.

Local government has done its bit and is doing its bit for the deficit, and we need to support local government going forward. Now that we have the public finances far more under control, we need to put more funding into other services, such as the police and schools. We also need to think about how funding is distributed, because currently the fairness is not there—for example, the people of Warwickshire get a raw deal compared with people in many metropolitan areas. We also need to think about the context and the effect that putting more money into public services has on our public finances. We need to think about the effect on what tax people need to pay. In the light of those things, the motion does not address the whole picture. It is based purely on a political slant and is not there to support the people whom everyone in this Chamber wants to support. I am afraid the motion is there just to score a few points, so I shall not support it.

Supported Housing Funding

Debate between Clive Betts and Marcus Jones

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question from a sedentary position. In relation to our response to the consultation, the issue of timing is not lost on us and we expect to come forward with further proposals during the autumn.

[Mr Betts]

Sure.

[Mr Jones]

I can assure the Chairman of the Select Committee of that.

In relation to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made about piloting and further consultations, we will work closely with the sector and listen to what is being said during consultation. There may well be a case for testing proposals in some way, and we expect to set out further details about how we will go about introducing our proposals. What I underline, again, is that we are listening to the sector.

Sir Edward, I think you are going to pull me up very soon for running out of time, so I would just like to reassure right hon. and hon. Members that the Government have considered the consultation very carefully and have considered the proposals—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Education and Local Services

Debate between Clive Betts and Marcus Jones

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

The Government have had to look extremely carefully at funding in a number of areas over the past seven years, because when the Government the hon. Lady was part of left office in 2010, they left behind a deficit of £150 billion—the country was spending £150 billion more than it was earning every single year.

We have also given councils financial freedoms and flexibilities to manage their own budgets. In 2015 we provided them with more certainty and stability through the offer of a four-year financial settlement, and 97% of eligible local authorities have accepted that. It enables them to plan service delivery, transformation and more effective collaboration with local partners.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Gareth Snell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will make some more progress before I give way.

We are also responding positively to help councils meet the cost of increasing service pressures. In the spring Budget we provided an additional £2 billion to put social care on a more stable footing, and allowed relevant authorities the flexibility to raise more income through the adult social care precept. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) raised the important issue of social care. The former mentioned the importance of social care for the working-age population and what more we can do to get people with learning disabilities, for example, into work. That is an extremely important aspiration for the Government. The latter talked about what more we can do to deal with the social care challenges that we face, on which the Government will bring forward plans during this Parliament.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will not, because I am just coming on to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Before I cover the details of local government finance, I want to mention the important points made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about housing, which I think we all see as a critical issue. That is why we are devolving £3.4 billion to the Mayor of London for affordable housing during this spending period and why, to answer my hon. Friend’s question, we are fully committed to implementing the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, a piece of legislation that secured agreement right across the House and on which I had the pleasure of working with him.

To answer the hon. Member for Sheffield South East—this was a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish from the Opposition Front Bench—local government devolution is still very much on the agenda. The Government are committed to delivering the manifesto pledge that we made to help local authorities control more of the money they raise and we will work closely with local government to agree the best way of achieving that.

[Mr Betts]

Before the election there was a Bill before Parliament to introduce 100% retention of business rates by local councils. That was due to start in 2019. This is a two-year Queen’s Speech with no mention of that measure. Can the Minister therefore confirm that this measure will now not go ahead in 2019 as planned?

[Mr Jones]

As I have said, we are absolutely committed to allowing local government to keep more of the money it raises locally and we will work with local government to achieve that.

Some of our councils have also been sorely tested in recent weeks, dealing with major terrorist attacks in London and Manchester, and the appalling fire at Grenfell Tower. Our thoughts across the whole House are with the victims and their families, friends and communities. It is essential, as the Prime Minister has said, that the people affected get the support they need. The efforts of the fire service, the police and the emergency services have been outstanding. As the Prime Minister said last week in her statement on Grenfell Tower, we pay tribute to the London boroughs for their fantastic response. That includes a number of chief executives, who are currently working at the new central command centre, as well as the Mayor of London and leading figures from a number of councils outside London.

It is well documented that the initial response was not as good as it should have been, but since then we have acted quickly, working with local authorities on the immediate issues in advance of the public inquiry into the fire. We rapidly provided funding to help the residents affected by the tragedy and we have the Bellwin scheme available to meet the immediate and uninsurable costs of responding to the disaster. We have also guaranteed funding for temporary accommodation for those whose homes have been destroyed as a result of the fire while permanent homes are found. Funding for legal representation for residents to ensure that their voices are heard during the inquiry will also be provided.

We have seen extraordinary acts of selflessness and spontaneous acts of good will associated with these tragedies, which show just how strong and resilient our communities are. We must foster our togetherness and create the conditions for strong local public services to serve our communities. We value the important work that our public sector workers do in delivering these essential public services. This Government’s proposals will strengthen the economy, generate the tax revenues needed to invest in public services and ensure that all our citizens are provided with high-quality public services, at local and national level, at every stage of their lives. I commend this Gracious Speech to the House.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Marcus Jones

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

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

I will be brief because I recognise that we want to get to the final stages of this excellent Bill by the end of the sitting.

In terms of wider reach, the Bill is of course only a partial solution. The report of the Communities and Local Government Committee on homelessness drew attention to wider issues that need to be addressed. We need to build more homes in this country, particularly more affordable homes, and we need to build more affordable homes to rent. The Committee recognised that housing needs vary in different parts of the country. Different housing markets need a different response, particularly in terms of tenure mix.

We look forward to the housing White Paper, which we understand is coming soon. We hope that it will be published before the end of February, when Ministers will be coming before our Committee to give evidence as part of our inquiry into the capacity of the housebuilding industry. We will be able to pursue further some of the points about the ability to provide the homes that are needed at that time. I hope that, as the Minister for Housing and Planning seems to be indicating, we will see a move away from the idea that starter homes and shared ownership are the total answer to the country’s housing needs.

A lot has been said about longer-term tenancies in the private rented sector. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is absolutely right. When the Select Committee looked at that in the previous Parliament, we supported longer-term tenancies. We want to encourage everyone to move towards them. Within those tenancies, people can get the certainty of an agreed annual rent increase, which is different from having an artificially imposed rent control from outside.

In the here and now, money is absolutely crucial to the Bill’s success. We are getting a little confused about the timings of reviews. From the Select Committee’s point of view, two years on from implementation seems to be a good time to review whether the legislation is working and whether the money available had enabled it to work over the previous two years. I hope that the Minister sees the commitment to a review as a helpful proposal. Alongside the Government, we will review the working of the legislation and the position regarding money. Although there is money in the first year to help local government with start-up costs, after the regulations have been put in place, the Act will probably not be implemented for about a year. We then have a second year with limited funding, and then no funding in the third year, which is probably the second year of operation. I have concerns about that.

I cannot see that there will not be costs to local councils, so I think there is a need for a more immediate review after the Bill is passed, with regard to that third year. If Ministers are looking at a quicker, more immediate review of the finances as soon as the Bill is passed, that would be helpful. The Select Committee would be ready to do an immediate review on that very limited basis, if it would assist the process.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts).

Right hon. and hon. Members have spoken quite a lot about the whys and wherefores of process, and about who tabled which amendments where and when—which side is more sanctimonious than the other almost springs to mind. I am not going to get into that because the Bill is very much about outcomes for people who are at risk of homelessness and people who have unfortunately become homeless.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). New clause 1 would put on the face of the Bill a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to review the legislation no earlier than one year and no later than two years after commencement, and would require the review to consider the funding of the provisions. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the question of reviewing the costs of the legislation was raised and discussed at length in Committee, but for the benefit of those who were not there I shall state my commitment very clearly.

I will review the implementation of the legislation, including its resourcing and how it is working in practice, concluding no later than two years after the commencement of its substantive clauses. I will also carry out, in the same timeframe, a post-implementation review of the new burdens to review the robustness of our assessment of the estimated cost to local authorities and the underlying assumptions. As part of both reviews, I would welcome the input and expertise of the Select Committee, and I am happy to discuss how it could be involved. The resources and funding requirements related to the duties I have outlined will also be considered alongside all the other responsibilities of local authorities as part of future spending reviews.

It is important to bear it in mind that the Bill’s provisions will not be implemented on the day it receives Royal Assent, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith acknowledged. We were clear in Committee that the Bill’s successful implementation will depend on working with local government to ensure that resources, guidance and training are in place before its provisions are enacted. For that reason, each measure in the Bill can be commenced independently, once local authorities are ready. Given that fact, a statutory requirement to review, tied to the commencement date of the eventual Act, is unworkable, because the substantive clauses will be commenced at a later date. I also argue that such a statutory requirement is unnecessary given the commitments already in place and the long-standing new burdens assessment procedures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I would like to respond to several of the matters raised by colleagues.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) mentioned the work with the LGA around amendment 10. He is correct on that, as he is on amendments 20 and 21, in relation to the concerns of the charities, particularly Shelter. He showed that he is extremely sharp when he raised the point about costs and the comments I made earlier about when I would bring forward further details of the additional cost incurred due to amendments that have been made to the Bill this morning. Indeed, my intention was to bring those costs to the House once the Bill had been amended. I will not tease the hon. Gentleman any further. In a few minutes, I hope to be giving further detail on the cost.

Before I conclude, I want to correct one point I made this morning when we dealt with the second group of amendments and I was responding to the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). He raised the issue of the code of guidance and it being put before the House. I inadvertently said that the code of guidance would be put before the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall from all those long Committee sittings that it is in the legislation that the code of practice will come before the House, rather than the code of guidance. However, I will seek to reassure my hon. Friend, or rather the hon. Gentleman—I was straying into risky territory again, there. I want to reassure him by saying that we would certainly welcome his Committee’s involvement in relation to the consultation on the revised code of guidance that will come out of the provisions in the Bill.

[Mr Betts]

I thank the Minister for that helpful clarification. The Committee will try to play a constructive role in that. We welcome the code of guidance coming to us, and we will as quickly as possible take a look at it and get comments back to him. Equally, if the code of practice is coming to the House, we will probably want to play a role as part of that formal process as well.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As ever during this process, he has sought to use a very constructive tone in the debate and has shown pragmatism. We have been able to all work together; that goes for the Opposition Front-Bench team, too. It has not been easy at times, but there has been a pragmatic approach to making sure that we get this legislation into a good place and to the other end of the Corridor, thereby encouraging noble Lords to support not just the amendments dealt with today, but the overall Bill as a significant package towards helping people who are at risk of becoming homeless, or who do indeed become homeless.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Amendments made: 11, page 11, leave out lines 29 and 30.

This amendment, and amendments 12 and 13, limit the grounds on which a notice can be given under new section 193A of the Housing Act 1996 (inserted by clause 7), so that it can only be given if the applicant deliberately and unreasonably refuses to take a step that the applicant agreed to take, or that was recorded, under new section 189A of that Act (inserted by clause 3).

Amendment 12, page 12, leave out lines 9 to 11.

See amendment 11.

Amendment 13, page 12, line 16, leave out from “refuse” to “after” in line 17 and insert—

“to take any such step”.

See amendment 11.

Amendment 14, page 13, line 16, after “made” insert “by a private landlord”.

This amendment, and amendments 15 and 16, make it clear that a final offer of an assured shorthold tenancy would not be made by the local housing authority itself, but rather be made by a private landlord and approved by the authority. A local housing authority cannot grant an assured shorthold tenancy - see sections 1 and 19A of, and paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to, the Housing Act 1988.

Amendment 15, page 13, line 19, leave out “by or”.

See amendment 14.

Amendment 16, page 13, line 29, leave out from “not” to “unless” in line 30 and insert—

“approve a final accommodation offer, or make a final Part 6 offer,”.

See amendment 14.

Amendment 17, page 13, line 39, after “if” insert “—

(a) section 193ZA(3) disapplies this section, or

(b) ”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment inserts, into section 193 of the Housing Act 1996, a reference to section 193ZA of that Act (inserted by amendment 10), under which section 193 can be disapplied.

Clause 9

Reviews

Amendment made: 18, page 15, line 6, after “section” insert “193ZA or”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment allows an applicant to request a review of a local housing authority’s decision as to the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant by way of a final accommodation offer or a final Part 6 offer under section 193ZA of the Housing Act 1996 (inserted by amendment 10).

Clause 12

Suitability of private rented sector accommodation

Amendments made: 19, page 17, line 22 , after “section” insert “193ZA(6) or”.

This amendment applies the provision in article 3 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/2601), about when accommodation is to be regarded as unsuitable, to a decision by a local housing authority as to whether they should approve a final accommodation offer by a private landlord for the purposes of section 193ZA of the Housing Act 1996 (inserted by amendment 10).

Amendment 20, page 17, line 26, leave out “vulnerable person” and insert—

“person who has a priority need”.

This amendment applies the provision in article 3 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/2601), about when accommodation is to be regarded as unsuitable, to accommodation secured by a local housing authority, in discharge of their duty under section 189B(2) or 195(2) (inserted by clauses 5 and 4, respectively), for all persons who have a priority need rather than just “vulnerable persons”.

Amendment 21, page 17, leave out lines 32 to 37.— (Mr Marcus Jones)

See amendment 20. This amendment removes the definition of “vulnerable person”.



Third Reading

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Marcus Jones

2nd reading: House of Commons & Carry-over motion: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

That is a valid point, and, like in the current system, going forward there will be redistribution; it will be one of the core principles within the system, because in setting up the system we must make sure there are not areas that fundamentally lose out just because they do not start from the same position as other areas in the amount of business rates collected. A number of hon. Friends have asked about rural areas and the fact that many of them are very dependent on very small businesses, many of which will be exempted from business rates completely by this Government’s £6.7 billion package on business rate relief. I can reassure my hon. Friend and other Members that the effect of the 2017 revaluation will be mitigated for local authorities, because the system will be reset to make sure areas do not lose out. Indeed, that will also be the case prior to the new 100% business rates retention system getting under way.

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

On the issue of redistribution, we currently have the needs assessment, and indeed the Government are going to conduct another review of needs before they start the new 100% business rates retention system. The House has information each year on the needs assessment within the local government financial settlement and, indeed, votes upon it. I understand, however, that in future we are not going to have that system; instead, we are going to have something called the principles of allocation statement, which is made and set for the rest of the period over which the system runs. The principles of allocation statement will not come to this House for approval, however. Why is the House being circumvented in this decision-making process?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the Select Committee and has a great deal of knowledge and commands a great deal of respect in the House on local government matters, but I say to him that we are now in a very different world from the one we were in only a few years ago, when local government collected the whole of the business rate incentive and gave it to the Government. In that sense, 80% of the spending of local government was distributed from central Government on the basis of the principles the hon. Gentleman mentions. Now we are moving to a system where by the end of this decade 100% of money within local government will be raised locally, and therefore Government will not year on year be redistributing the funding, which has been the case hitherto. The other point I would make, which has been well-recognised by local authorities in the last year on the basis that 97% of local authorities have signed up to a four-year deal, is that local authorities have asked for certainty of funding, which this system certainly will provide for them.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) first, and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Jones]

I think my hon. Friend is referring to what we term the improved better care fund, which will go directly to local authorities. That funding has been brought forward as part of the spending review 2015. She will probably know that that funding effectively was obtained by changing the way in which the new homes bonus operates, and sharpening the incentive in relation to the way in which that system operates. As such, therefore, that additional money is not freed up quickly enough to do what she says. Although this year £105 million comes into the system, next year it will be £800 million and the year after that—the last year of the Parliament—it will be £1.5 billion. Alongside that, in this financial year we have also put an additional £240 million into the social care system as a dedicated social care grant, which again has been realised from additional savings made through the new homes bonus.

[Mr Betts]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. I entirely accept his explanation in relation to the year-on-year arrangements, because there will not be a change every year in needs assessment as there currently is; that will be fixed for the period of a longer settlement. What is essential, however, is that right at the beginning of this new system, when the new needs assessment has been done and an allocation is agreed in the first principles of allocation statement, that comes back to this House so that we can take a view on it.

[Mr Jones]

As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman commands a significant amount of respect in this House in regard to these matters, and, while he does not always realise it, there are Government Members who listen to the suggestions and concerns he raises, but I reiterate to him that we are moving into a different world, and that is why we have chosen to implement the system laid out in the Bill.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Clive Betts and Marcus Jones

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

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

Let’s hope it’s worth waiting for.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

That is a challenge, Mr Chope. I wish you and the rest of the Committee a happy new year.

Clause 10

Duty of public authority to refer cases to local housing authority

Amendment proposed (14 December 2016): 2, in clause 10, page 16, line 31, at end insert—

“(3A) Where the specified public authority makes a notification to the local housing authority the public authority must cooperate with the housing authority in meeting its duties under sections 179, 189A, 195, 189B and 199A of the Housing Act 1996.”—(Mr Betts.)

This amendment would ensure that where a public authority made a referral to a housing authority in respect of a person who is or may become homeless the public authority is under a duty to cooperate with the housing authority.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

[Mr Jones]

Amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, would reintroduce a duty that was in the original draft of the Bill when my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East first proposed it. We are concerned that the amendment would create burdensome and centrally imposed obligations on how local housing authorities interact with other public services. A one-size-fits-all obligation could create inefficiencies, potentially undoing some of the good work that is being carried out and developed naturally at local level.

In City of York Council’s response to the Communities and Local Government Committee’s call for evidence on the Bill, it highlighted the fact that local agencies in York already work together to prevent homelessness. That is just one example of effective arrangements being put in place locally that we would not want any new duties to cut across.

During our last sitting before Christmas, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, spoke at some length about the national statement of expectations published by the Home Office at the start of December. That sets out what local areas need to put in place to ensure that their response to violence against women and girls is collaborative, robust and effective, so that all victims and survivors receive the help that they need. We worked closely with the Home Office in developing it and our priorities for domestic abuse services.

Both the national statement of expectations and our priorities for domestic abuse services set out what local areas need to put in place to ensure that their response is as effective as it can be, so that all victims and survivors receive the help that they need. They were developed by working with commissioners and service providers, including third sector stakeholders, and they reinforce the importance of bringing local service providers together, understanding local need, developing a strategy to meet identified need, commissioning services accordingly and setting out clear leadership and joint accountability for delivery. That is a great example of how we can stimulate and encourage good work at local level. It underlines the importance of local flexibility and expertise, and supports local innovation.

The Government are supporting that innovation further, through our homelessness prevention programme. Just before Christmas, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced £50 million of funding, including £20 million for new prevention trailblazer areas across the country. One aim of that programme is to identify innovation and best practice, and the funding will support projects working across different services. For example, Brighton will provide a jointly commissioned nurse to help people with both substance misuse and mental health needs to access the support that they require. Examples such as that will create the best practice from which the rest of the country can learn.

In addition to the funding programme, I chair the local authority working group for homelessness prevention, in which about 15 local authorities come together to discuss various topics. One theme to which we will return regularly is good practice and how central Government can support and disseminate it. I also chair the ministerial working group on homelessness. The existence of that group recognises the fact that homelessness rarely results from a housing crisis alone, and that underlying issues with employment, health and justice are often critical factors. One aim of the group is better to join up homelessness strategy across Government, which in turn will help to encourage public services to work together in their local areas to prevent and relieve homelessness.

[Mr Betts]

I am listening to what the Minister is saying about the various ways in which good practice can be disseminated. Will he give consideration to including something in the guidance that he will issue, after the Bill becomes an Act, to local authorities, public bodies and other agencies about the importance of working together and co-operating?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Hon. Members have made very good points. We all believe that the Bill is a good tool for enabling culture change, and that it will drive different thinking and different behaviour among local authorities. We have heard from the various charities that have done mystery shopper exercises. The Bill has been driven by a concern about the need for more consistency in how the current legislation and statutory guidance are implemented locally and how assistance is received by people who go to a local authority for it.

The clause is very much a process whereby we will enable further parliamentary scrutiny of the decisions that the Secretary of State will make on creating and bringing into force codes of practice. There is obviously the issue of reissuing guidance, or reissuing under the code of practice things that are already dealt with in guidance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, that will sometimes need to be done quickly and, therefore, the procedure will not apply. If we see that local authorities are not responding properly to the guidance that is currently issued, we will be able to beef up our approach quickly if necessary.

[Mr Betts]

The Minister’s proposal is very welcome. Thinking off the top of my head, almost, I am wondering whether, given that we have been setting precedents in our approach to this legislation and subject, there might be a role for the Select Committee to have a brief hearing on the draft code of practice to consider whether it really does deal with the problems that the Committee has identified.

[Mr Jones]

That is certainly an innovative suggestion, which I would need to take away and think about further. However, I see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. I accept that we have dealt with the Bill very much in the spirit of co-operation, as we want to get the right outcome for the people we all represent. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and I will take it into account.

On other codes of practice that may stem from the changes made by the Bill and other statutory guidance that is issued, it is extremely important that we enable parliamentary colleagues to be consulted on measures in the code of guidance. Although the measures will not be voted on as such, there will be a procedure whereby Members can bring a debate to the House and potentially pray against any code of guidance that they did not think was right. However, given the spirit in which we have approached this matter, rather than taking safeguards away, in most cases we would look to add further safeguards to help people. I therefore hope hon. Members are reassured that this is a positive tool with which we can enhance the situation for the people that we are trying to help through the Bill.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

Amendment made: 14, in clause 11, page 17, line 24, at end insert—

“( ) Subsections (3A) to (3C) do not apply to the reissue of a code of practice under this section.” —(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment clarifies that the procedure for issuing a code of practice inserted by amendment 13 does not apply to the reissue of a code.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Clive Betts and Marcus Jones

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 14th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

Clause 6 adds clarity to the homelessness prevention and relief duties. It ensures that the requirements that a local housing authority must meet when securing accommodation for applicants itself do not apply when it takes steps to help to secure accommodation. That common sense change means that authorities can work more efficiently and can direct resources to where they are needed most, and that households get the help they need while retaining their ability to make their own choices about where they live. The Government are therefore happy to support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Duty of public authority to refer cases to local housing authority

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

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 10, page 16, line 31, at end insert—

“(3A) Where the specified public authority makes a notification to the local housing authority the public authority must cooperate with the housing authority in meeting its duties under sections 179, 189A, 195, 189B and 199A of the Housing Act 1996.”.

This amendment would ensure that where a public authority made a referral to a housing authority in respect of a person who is or may become homeless the public authority is under a duty to cooperate with the housing authority.

The amendment is very much in the spirit of clause 10, but it goes a bit further. This was an important matter when the Select Committee held its first inquiry into homelessness and produced its first report. Indeed, chapter 7 of our report was on cross-Government working—we might have called it “lack of cross-Government working,” given the evidence from various witnesses. In the chapter’s introduction we quoted the words of Howard Sinclair, the chief executive of St Mungo’s, who said that “Homelessness is everyone’s issue”. From the evidence we heard, the Select Committee decided that all Departments need to contribute to ending homelessness.

Jon Sparkes of Crisis said

“there is very little evidence that the influence of DCLG is spreading to the other Departments.”

The Minister looks a little hurt, but he should not. We are trying to help him in the battle he has to wage with his colleagues in other Departments. We want him to have meetings with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, who have produced proposals such as changing the supported accommodation allowances without any thought to what will actually happen to the accommodation provided for homeless people. That is not DCLG’s fault. As far as I know, DCLG was not even consulted. It is important for there to be genuine understanding of the actions of other Departments, such as the DWP or the Department of Health. We all know that homeless people often have mental health problems—mental health problems can cause homelessness, and homelessness can cause mental health problems—so co-operation with the Department of Health and all the various health organisations is essential.

As it stands, clause 10 is a good proposal. Authorities should be advised to contact the relevant housing authority when they recognise that a person with whom they are in contact is homeless or threatened with homelessness, which is an entirely reasonable starting point. The problem is that it is a bit like, “We have passed it over to you; it’s your problem now.” That is the exact opposite of what the Select Committee was trying to say in its report. It is not about saying, “We have identified that this person may be at risk of homelessness. Get on with it, housing authority. You will sort it out now. There is nothing else to it. It is simply a homelessness issue.” We stated very clearly that, right the way through, there has to be cross-Government working and a clear indication that that is going to happen.

My amendment therefore sets out the responsibility in a simple way. It might not go far enough, and I accept the criticism that it is too weak in its emphasis on what more can be done. All the amendment says is that an authority that passes on to a housing authority concerns about an individual who is homeless or threatened with homelessness has a duty to co-operate with the housing authority on meeting its duties. That seems to me an entirely reasonable proposition, and one that I hope we will all support.

I know the Minister’s colleagues in other Departments have to agree to any new burdens placed on them and that local authorities just have new burdens given to them; other Government Departments seem to have a say on what gets passed on to them. It seems to me entirely reasonable, and not an exceptional request, to say that while it is good that a public authority has to notify a housing authority when it comes across somebody who is homeless or who is threated with homelessness, should we not ask for that little bit more—that that public authority co-operates?

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Clive Betts and Marcus Jones

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

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

At the last sitting, I talked about amendment 1 and how it was important, when local authorities made an offer of housing accommodation, to have regard to the location of that accommodation in respect of the household’s employment, caring responsibilities, schooling arrangements and so on. I said it was important to ensure that the code of guidance was implemented and I sought unanimity across the Committee on that matter.

Since then, the Minister helpfully requested a meeting with me and the hon. Member for Harrow East. We talked about what was in the code of guidance and I accept that there are probably more things in there than in my amendment. The problem is that many local authorities are not having proper regard to that and are not carrying out their responsibilities in the way we would like.

I am sure the Minister will confirm that he has now indicated that once the Bill is enacted, he will write to all local authorities to draw attention not merely to the new elements of responsibility they will have under the Act, but to existing responsibilities under previous legislation and the code of guidance. He will ask them to come forward with a strategy to deal with homelessness. He will work with the Local Government Association to try to get some model wording for the advice that local authorities will offer to those presenting themselves as homeless, including on suitability and appropriate location of a property, that a local authority should have regard to.

The Minister will ask authorities to reply to him indicating their strategy and the wording in their advice. He will then have staff available to go into those local authorities where he has concerns that they might not be following that through. I think that is a summary of our conversation, but I would be happy for the Minister to confirm that on the record. In that case, I would not press my amendment and would be happy to move on with our discussions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the constructive conversation that we had following last week’s Committee sitting. I am pleased that he recognises that local housing authorities must already have regard to the significance of any disruption that would be caused by the location of the accommodation to the employment, caring responsibilities or education of the person or members of the person’s household, under article 2 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012.

I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on the successful implementation of the Bill. As he said, that will include working with the sector on the code of guidance and on the co-production of templates for personalised plans on this and other elements of the Bill; re-emphasising to local authorities the importance of complying with the suitability order; and taking the further steps that he has just mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. We are saying that the suitability of accommodation order should be followed. We are determined that we want that to be followed and, therefore, will reiterate that in guidance. We will take the steps mentioned by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East to ensure that local authorities are complying with the law.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

We are talking about a minimum of six months. The provision does not prevent a longer period from being agreed. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

The final matter that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East mentioned was housing benefit and 18 to 21-year-olds. I reiterate that the reform will affect only new claimants on universal credit from April 2017. It will not affect people in work. The measure is intended to ensure that young people do not slip into a life on benefits. Youth unemployment has a long-term scarring effect on people, so it is important to improve the incentive for young people to move into work. We are introducing a new youth obligation, which will offer a new and intensive package of labour market support for 18 to 21-year-olds to get back into work.

The measure is also about bringing parity to a system in which an unemployed young person can leave the family home whereas an employed young person may not be able to. Exemptions will be put in place to ensure that those unable to return to the family home have the right access to support, and there will be a grace period for those who have been in work for the previous six months.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister elaborate on his point about the grace period, which is important? Is he therefore saying that if a young person who has been in work for six months then loses their job, they will, for at least a time, get a housing element of universal credit to enable them to stay in their home while they get further work?

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Clive Betts and Marcus Jones

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Betts]

I hear the Minister, but the fact is that local authorities often do not do that. It is okay saying, “Well, there are reviews and we may eventually get to legal action,” but when a family is homeless and desperate for accommodation—they will probably be in temporary accommodation—that is not a great help.

Another problem is that the words “must” and “should” seem to be used interchangeably. The Minister said that local authorities must have regard to the guidance, and he used the word “must” with regard to medical facilities, but the word used in paragraph 53 of the supplementary guidance on the 2012 order is “should” not “must”. Is that not a problem? Could we at least look at toughening up that guidance by putting in a few more “must”s instead of the “should”s that are currently in it?

[Mr Jones]

I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s points, certainly where local authorities are not complying with the 2012 order in the way that is intended. The existing power in section 210 of the Housing Act 1996 allows the Secretary of State to make an order—secondary legislation—to strengthen the definition of “suitability”. Such an order may specify the

“circumstances in which accommodation is or is not”

suitable or

“matters to be taken into account or disregarded in determining whether”

the accommodation is suitable.

We expect councils to adhere to both the 1996 Act and the 2012 order. As I say, that Act gives us significant powers where the order is not followed. I reiterate that that is not guidance but an order, and councils must adhere to it. The Bill must serve as a reminder to local authorities that the order must be adhered to, and I put local authorities on notice that if it is not, we can review and change the regulations through the 1996 Act. Should councils not respond to the Bill or the order that is already in place, I am certain that we will seek to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

There are many ways in which the Bill broadens the support that people will get. As the hon. Gentleman knows, later in the Bill there is a duty to refer. Organisations will therefore have to notify local authority housing teams of people in certain circumstances as they pass through the NHS system in hospital A&Es and so on. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East is proposing a broad provision. As I said, it is difficult in terms of its workability. The challenge would be massive for local authorities, which would almost have to become experts in massive areas of work that they are simply not in a position to be experts on.

However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that local authorities can work in a better and more collegiate fashion across public services and other organisations that can help people who are homeless or becoming homeless. In many ways, the Bill will seek to achieve that. I therefore do not think it is necessary at this point to support the amendments that the hon. Gentleman has tabled.

[Mr Betts]

I have a difficulty because I do not think the provision is satisfactory. Equally, I understand that the Minister wants to see what is in the code of practice or code of guidance implemented. From a Select Committee point of view, we had a clear view: we were concerned that these matters were not being properly addressed in terms of location when offers were made to people who qualify as homeless persons. We are trying to find a way forward that keeps some unanimity, but gives us more reassurance that something will be done. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Northampton South that there could be a role for a Select Committee, but there is also a role for Government.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Clive Betts and Marcus Jones

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

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

I want to re-emphasise the point that my hon. Friend has made. It would be useful to have some idea of timing so that we can plan ahead and prepare. I also welcome what the hon. Member for Harrow East, who is in charge of the Bill, has said about the intention to proceed on an all-party basis and to try to secure agreement, because that is how we have worked on the issue. Even before the Bill was a gleam in the hon. Gentleman’s eye, the Communities and Local Government Committee discussed the issue and its members worked together on trying to improve the service that homeless people receive.

I welcome the fact that we will take another look at clause 1. On Second Reading, I raised concerns about the loopholes that it might provide for those authorities that are perhaps less enthusiastic than us about trying to improve the service. Some of the caveats may give them wiggle room not to deliver the sort of service intended. It is important that we get the clause right, that we make it watertight and that we do not allow wiggle room for authorities that do not want to comply, so it is very important that we have time to consider it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I reiterate the Government’s support for the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. As he has said, since Second Reading we have been working closely with him and a number of other stakeholders to get to this point.

I hear what has been said about clause 1. As I said on Second Reading, we were aware that several stakeholder groups had concerns about clause 1. At that point, we said that we would listen carefully to those concerns. We have continued to do that and to engage in dialogue.

As my hon. Friend has said, we cannot yet say for definite when the amendment to the clause will be tabled, but I assure Opposition Front Benchers that, in the spirit of how the Bill has been handled so far—a spirit of co-operation across the House to enact important legislation that will benefit homeless people and people at risk of becoming homeless across the country—we fully intend to ensure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith has sight of the proposal for clause 1 as soon as is practicable. We are willing to work with him.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Marcus Jones

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 28th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing up a point that Members across the House have rightly raised today. I shall say more about this later, but I hope that I will be able to reassure her and other Members that the Government are absolutely committed to providing new funding to local authorities to allow them to discharge the new duties in the Bill.

As I was saying, preventing homelessness as early as possible is critical. Importantly, the Bill places a duty on local authorities to start helping applicants 56 days before they are threatened with homelessness. This doubles the current period for help and brings it more into line with the notice period for ending an assured shorthold tenancy, which is currently the lead trigger for statutory homelessness acceptances.

The Bill will place a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness for eligible households threatened with homelessness. It will also ensure that other local services refer those who are either homeless or at risk of being homeless to local authority housing teams, and that care leavers are more easily able to establish a local connection and so are not deterred from seeking support, should they need it.

The Bill will make a real difference; it offers support to a much wider group of people who need it than the existing legislation, which is why I am today pleased to offer the House the Government’s full and unfettered support for the Bill. I can confirm that the Government will fund the additional costs of the Bill, in line with the long-standing new burdens arrangements.

As I said to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), there will be new funding for local authorities. We will work closely with local authorities and homelessness charities to ensure the successful implementation of the Bill. That includes a commitment to working together on any guidance and codes of practice that will be required to sit alongside the new legislation.

[Mr Betts]

I welcome the Minister’s assurance about the codes of practice. His efforts to get Government support for the Bill are greatly appreciated. On the money, aside from the initial work with the LGA to get the new burdens figures agreed, does he accept that it is difficult to predict the precise costs of the legislation? Will he reflect on whether, once the legislation has been in operation for a year, he should sit down with the LGA again to see whether the initial figures are correct or in need of revision?

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my work on this important matter. In view of the changes recently made to the Bill, we are looking very carefully at the costs. We acknowledge that the Government will have to deal with the new burdens that will come with the legislation. We are speaking to the LGA and will continue to do so. We are also speaking to local authorities about the costs that will be incurred. He makes a good point; in the past few months, I have created a local authority working group. Local authorities come to the Department to discuss various issues and good practice that they are promoting. We are certainly listening to what that group is saying and feeding that into the work being done by the cross-Government ministerial working group.

Litter and Fly-tipping: England

Debate between Clive Betts and Marcus Jones

Thursday 25th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the Communities and Local Government Committee for its report on litter and fly-tipping and thank the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and other hon. Members for an excellent debate. It is one of those debates that is relatively unusual in the House, in that it is on a subject that, on balance, probably unites us more than divides us.

Littering and fly-tipping cause great concern to residents, councils and this Government. They are antisocial environmental crimes that pose risks to human health and animal welfare, spoil relationships between neighbours and their wider community, and affect the way people feel about the place that they call home. There is evidence that high levels of litter can restrict the economic growth of an area, reduce property prices and increase residents’ fear of crime. For local authorities, it is also a significant issue. It costs them hundreds of millions of pounds every year to clear litter and illegally dumped waste from our streets and public spaces. As far as this Government are concerned, they should not have to do that. Litter and fly-tipping are avoidable problems. It is simply not right that the behaviour of a selfish minority ends up blighting our landscapes while imposing costs on landowners and local taxpayers. A change in our culture is needed to get Britain back to the “green and pleasant land” that we are so renowned for across the globe.

This is about personal responsibility, which means consciously not littering, even when it is mildly inconvenient to dispose of our rubbish properly. Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching. Of course there are practical ways in which the Government can help. We welcome the Select Committee’s report and agree with many of its recommendations to combat the problems of litter and fly-tipping.

Local authorities are at the heart of our communities. They deliver front-line services to the public and are vital in meeting the challenge of eradicating litter and fly-tipping. Although litter and fly-tipping are clearly problems, the majority of local authorities can be commended for the fact that they are consistent in maintaining standards. In many cases, that has even been the case during a difficult period in which local government has had to do more with less, which does not make the Government at all complacent in its determination to reduce litter and fly-tipping. We need to clean up and change people’s culture, values and attitude to their environments.

This should not be a top-down approach. The Government are committed to localism and the transfer of power to local communities to deal with litter and fly-tipping problems, which require a local approach tailored to the characteristics of the area and the community in which the problems occur. Like the rest of the public sector, local authorities have worked hard over the last five years, but they still need to be thinking innovatively about how they can make litter and fly-tipping-related savings while protecting existing street cleansing services and standards.

The Chair of the Select Committee mentioned the work in Nottingham. The same has been happening in Bath and North East Somerset, where they use Bigbelly smart bins, which are electronic-type bins that tell the council when they are full. Bath and North East Somerset Council estimates that the way the bins work—the council goes out to empty them only when they need to be emptied—has saved 390 labour hours a month, which is a significant saving. I would like more local authorities to take the same sort of lead as Nottingham City Council, and Bath and North East Somerset Council. Many councils are putting in a significant amount of money. There have been a number of different estimates of that money, but we think they are probably putting about £700 million a year into dealing with litter.

As the Chair of the Select Committee mentioned, there is pressure on the provision of social care, bearing in mind that the population is getting older, yet it is important to point out that while growing old is inevitable, littering and fly-tipping are not. In the end there is a choice, and I would much rather that councils were able very easily to make the choice to put additional money into social care provision, rather than having to put so much money into the problem of litter and fly-tipping.

The Government still have a role to play, because no matter how good and innovative councils become, they need the support and the backing of the Government to tackle the problem. During the Select Committee inquiry, the Government agreed that their role was to enable local action in three ways: setting clear overall standards for cleanliness, ensuring legal powers to enable councils to take effective action, and ensuring that costs can be passed to those responsible for causing the problem. Our immediate priorities to achieve this will deliver on our manifesto commitments to review the case for increasing the fines for littering offences and to allow local authorities to tackle small-scale fly-tipping through fixed penalties as an alternative to prosecutions. That is something that a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), have raised today, and I am glad that there is significant support for that approach.

We want to work with local government and relevant stakeholders to develop a national litter strategy. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) was a little concerned about the wording in the Select Committee report, but I reassure him that we want a robust strategy to deal with litter and fly-tipping. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), and I are absolutely focused on trying to achieve a robust litter strategy and we are working very closely to do so. We want a strategy that will enable effective and co-ordinated anti-litter work across England, focusing on affordable and measurable ways to change behaviour, reduce litter and improve the local environment. That is a priority for our communities, which deserve a lasting legacy of clutter-free towns and cities, and a countryside of which we can all be proud.

We have already begun to work with producers of commonly littered items, major retailers, some of the leading charities and NGOs in the sector, and local councils. We need to do more with those organisations to ensure that we really get to grips with and tackle the problem. In addition to those immediate priorities, the Government have agreed with the Committee’s recommendation to try to make a national litter-pick an annual event.

I am delighted that so much publicity has been given to the Clean for the Queen event. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton and I have not disagreed on much, but personally I think that Clean for the Queen is a fantastic statement for us to make. However, we should not split too many hairs. The point is that on 3, 4 and 5 March, we will all come together as communities up and down the country, supporting each other to clean up those areas. I encourage any hon. Members who are not already signed up to a clean-up on that weekend to get involved. It is great to see so many hon. Members involved, and it was good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) here. She has done a lot with Keep Britain Tidy over the past few weeks to encourage hon. Members to get involved.

I note the comments of the Chairman of the Select Committee about the time it took for the Government to respond to the report. I apologise for the delay. I regret that we did not reply within a more reasonable timeframe. He acknowledged that the report was released very shortly before the purdah period and the ensuing general election, and I think he mentioned that the report cuts across several Departments. It actually cuts across many Government Departments and, although our response was positive, it was not provided as quickly as usually would be the case. I hope he takes my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned data. That is a hugely important point. We are certainly working with an advisory group. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned Keep Britain Tidy, which is part of that advisory group alongside a number of other important organisations in the area. We are trying to bring forward a package to ensure that we collect the necessary data so that the work of our litter and fly-tipping strategy is measured in relation to its success.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East mentioned fixed penalty notices, which I assure him we are carefully considering. Fixed penalty notices should be a last resort, but they are an extremely important enforcement tool in the box to make people think twice about dropping litter. We are carefully considering what we can do to increase penalties to ensure that fixed penalty notices are a significant deterrent. We will not impose additional penalties without properly consulting the public first, which is right.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned smoking litter, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—I will address his points in a moment. I agree with what the Chair of the Select Committee says about that problem. He mentioned a tobacco levy, on which the Government consulted last year. It is obvious from that consultation that if we put any sort of levy on the tobacco companies, they would pass it straight on to the end user, which we have to take seriously. Effectively, he is looking to levy an additional tax on tobacco and cigarettes that would come back to the Treasury and, through my Department, go directly to local authorities to address some of these issues. It is slightly above my pay grade to make such commitments—it is an issue for the Treasury—but his point is on the record.

[Mr Betts]

I was nodding across the room to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) when the Minister said that the levy would be passed on to smokers. Ultimately, they are the ones who drop the litter. A little contribution from them towards local authority costs does not seem completely unreasonable, does it?

[Mr Jones]

I will only say that there would be an additional cost to end users, who already contribute significant amounts to the Treasury in taxation. When that money comes into the Treasury, some of it goes to local authorities in relation to their duties. Some of that money, by implication, must be spent on addressing the problem. I am not suggesting that the points the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East are making should never be considered, but they are taxation matters, which should be considered carefully by the Treasury.

[Mr Betts]

I will take the Minister a little further down that road into areas that he probably does not want to go into. When we get to 2019-20 and the full localisation of business rates, there will not be any Treasury contribution towards local authorities from tobacco tax or any other form of tax. Would that not be a different situation, in which there might be a need to reconsider whether there should be some Treasury contribution from tobacco tax towards the clean-up of tobacco litter?

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Marcus Jones

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

First, I shall respond to the point raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee. I know he has discussed it with the Minister for Housing and Planning previously, and the Minister has just told me that he will undertake to write to him to clear up the confusion.

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I will give way later in my comments. This is the final group before we send this Bill to the other place. A small number of landlords and property agents do not manage their lettings or properties properly, sometimes exploiting their tenants and the public purse through renting out overcrowded accommodation. New clause 62 deals with the contravention of an overcrowding notice under section 139 of the Housing Act 2004. The maximum fine currently allowed is set at level four, which is £2,500. The amendment, which affects premises in England only, would remove the restriction on the fine that may be imposed. The landlords and property agents who let overcrowded properties will therefore face the same penalties as those who let out substandard and unsafe properties.

Amendments 27 to 30 revise schedule 6 to the Bill to increase the maximum amount of civil penalty that can be imposed as an alternative to prosecution for the following offences: failure to comply with an improvement notice; failure to obtain a licence for a licensable house of multiple occupation or to comply with HMO licence conditions; and failure to obtain a licence for a property subject to selective licensing, or to comply with licensed conditions. The maximum penalty for those offences will now stand at £30,000. The amendments also increase the civil penalty to £30,000 for contravening an overcrowding notice. Once again, that is in line with the civil penalties for other housing offences under the Housing Act 2004.

In addition, the offence of failing to comply with management regulations in respect of a house in multiple occupation has also been added to the list of offences that can attract civil penalties as well as an alternative to prosecution.

We have listened to the debate that has taken place as the Bill has progressed through the House. In Committee, Members expressed concern that £5,000 was not much of a disincentive for a rogue landlord to continue to operate as they could easily recoup that sum in a relatively short period of time through unlawfully continuing to rent out properties, and we absolutely agree with that. A potential fine of up to £30,000 will significantly negate any economic advantage a rogue landlord might seek to achieve through breaching a banning order. The amendments tabled during this part of our debate will help to create a fairer housing market and to see unscrupulous landlords driven from the sector.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Marcus Jones

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I shall try to keep my comments brief while I address as many of those points as I can. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) for tabling her new clause to require a local authority to request tenure information from residents, owners and managing agents whenever the authority requests council tax information. Like my hon. Friend, I am supportive of ensuring that local authorities have the tools necessary to tackle rogue landlords in the private rented sector in their areas. The Government are committed to promoting a strong, professional private rented sector in which good landlords can prosper and hard-working tenants can enjoy decent standards and receive a service that represents value for money for their rent.

I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s proposal, but we need to be mindful that we are increasing the tools that local authorities can use by requiring tenancy deposit protection schemes to provide tenancy deposit information, when requested, to local housing authorities and other relevant bodies in England, as set out in part 5 of the Bill. As my hon. Friend knows, local authorities already have powers in existing and draft legislation to seek information on housing tenure, through the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the Housing Act 2004, as well as through Land Registry and housing benefit data. It will be important to establish why local authorities are not already using the powers they have at their disposal. I am therefore pleased to tell my hon. Friend that I propose to set up a working group to examine this important issue. The group will include experts from the sector, such as landlords, local authorities and the Local Government Association, and will report back to Ministers within three to six months. Given my hon. Friend’s strong interest in this area, I would like to invite her to be part of that working group.

[Mr Betts]

It is good that the Minister has an interest in pursuing the ideas that the hon. Lady has raised, but if the group reports back in three to six months, that means that this Bill will be passed without these changes being introduced. If the working group came up with the view that these proposals were needed, what is the earliest reasonable date by which they could be implemented?

[Mr Jones]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for that question. We first need to establish whether or not primary legislation is required, and we also need to establish exactly why local authorities are not using the powers they currently have at their disposal. That is what we intend to do, and it is why we have set up the working group. From that work, we will consider what measures are necessary—or not—to take forward the proposal made by my hon. Friend.

[Mr Betts]

I understand that there might be a need to establish why local authorities are not using powers they already have. Is the Minister saying to the House that local authorities currently have all the powers that are contained in the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson)?

[Mr Jones]

The significant difference in my hon. Friend’s new clause is that there is a compulsion on local authorities to obtain the information that it requires and then to act on that. At the moment, there is nothing to prevent local authorities from doing that, as they have the powers from the 1992 Act and they have the powers to use that information from the 2004 Act.

I shall move on to deal with new clause 55, which would require all local authorities to operate an accreditation and licensing scheme for private landlords. I do not believe that local authorities should be required to operate an accreditation scheme in their area. Accreditation is only of interest to good landlords who rent out decent accommodation, so it does not help to identify and tackle the criminal landlords, whom we are tackling through other measures in the Bill. In addition, local authorities are in the best position to decide whether there is a need for an accreditation scheme in their area. I welcome the Chairman of the Select Committee’s comments about this new clause, particularly what he said about the civil penalties that the Bill includes and rent repayment orders. Both of those were measures that the Select Committee sought in the last Parliament. He mentioned bureaucracy, but he does need to consider that due process does need to be followed and full public consultation needs to take place. That is a challenge in regard to the concern that he had, but he did make an important point about best practice. Some local authorities are doing this very well and we need to spread that best practice and examine how we can do so.

New clause 56 seeks to widen the housing ombudsman’s role to cover private sector housing and disputes between tenants and private landlords in London through requiring the Secretary of State to set up a pilot scheme, and then potentially extend it nationwide. As I set out in Committee, private sector landlords can of course already join the housing ombudsman scheme on a voluntary basis. Indeed, many landlords who wish to assure their tenants of the quality of their services do so already. The Greater London Authority would need to take a view on whether it would be appropriate for the housing ombudsman to expand its role in London given linkages with the London rental standard. Were these landlords required to sign up, we would not expect the same level of engagement or compliance with the process, and determinations would not be enforceable. We would risk increasing costs while the tenants of reluctant landlords may not see the benefit.