Social Cohesion Action Plan
Gareth Snell Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Reed
I am sorry that the hon. Member has chosen to misrepresent the definition. It is intended to protect Muslims from abuse that we know is shrinking people’s lives and life opportunities. One would hope that everyone in this House would get behind actions intended to give Muslim people the same chances as anyone else in our country.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the community cohesion strategy, which the Labour group of Hope not Hate, which I chair, has been calling for. The Secretary of State will know that the other side of the coin when building community cohesion is the counter-extremism work to stop people being radicalised in the first place, whether that is people on the far right with anti-Muslim hatred, or people on the far left with anti-Jewish hatred. What action will be taken to address those who perpetrate such myths about people, whether they be Muslim, Sikh, Hindu or Jew, and what resources might come from the Department to achieve that?
Steve Reed
The Government are intending to bring into force and fully utilise the powers available in the Online Safety Act 2023. By doing that, we think we can tackle some of the worst online sources of disinformation and hatred that are being spread around to sow division in our communities.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gareth Snell Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern
As I have said in this Chamber a number of times, we can provide substantial increases to councils, as we need to, and it is very important that we do in places like Manchester, but unless we have a more preventive approach—for example, unless we stop children being taken into care, or stop councils facing really big challenges—councils will still face spiking costs. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and colleagues across Greater Manchester on making that work.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government are taking concerted action to boost rates of house building across England, including reforming the planning system and allocating record levels of grant funding support for social and affordable house building over the coming years, to the benefit of Stoke-on-Trent and the rest of the country.
Gareth Snell
I thank the Minister for that answer. Stoke-on-Trent has benefited from money from the brownfield regeneration fund. However, there are many brownfield sites across the city that could be used for local planning development, but the owners are simply not engaging with the process. Given that we are not in a mayoral combined authority, compulsory purchase powers are limited. Will the Minister consider devolving those powers to authorities like Stoke? If not, will he consider allowing interim development corporations, until such time as we have a mayor in place?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituency, and he continues to make a powerful case for the renewal of Hanley city centre as the commercial heart of north Staffordshire. I have had a series of constructive meetings with him and other local leaders about the Hanley masterplan. I know he will welcome the £8 million of investment in Burslem town centre, delivering 800 homes. I am more than happy to continue the conversation with him about the possibility of a new locally led development corporation to take forward the regeneration of the city centre.
Houses in Multiple Occupation: Planning Consent
Gareth Snell Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I welcome the Minister to her new role.
In this debate, I have found myself feeling slightly envious, listening to hon. Members around the Chamber talk about the work their councils are undertaking to achieve better regulation of HMOs. Sadly, in Stoke-on-Trent we are far behind others in that process. My residents in Hartshill and Basford, in Penkhull, in Fenton and in Birches Head are seeing many three-bedroom family homes being converted to six-bedroom HMOs. Then, rather naughtily, those six-bedroom HMOs become eight-bedroom HMOs with a retrospective application, at which point the council says, “Well, we only really have to consider the additional two bedrooms, because they had the right to do the six in the first place.”
That puts unimaginable strain on communities, such as the community in Claridge Road who now have exactly that—an eight-bedroom HMO sitting within a residential family area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said, HMOs have a really important part to play in the housing mix in towns and cities, but they have to be in the right place and controlled.
I have asked my council how many HMOs we have, but it cannot tell me; it does not keep a register, because it has never had to. I also asked my council how many six-bedroom HMOs we have and how many are licensed. Again, the council cannot tell me because it has never had to keep such a record.
I am working with Councillor Daniela Santoro in Hartshill Park & Stoke, and with Councillor Shaun Pender in Basford & Hartshill, to try to launch a pilot to cover those two wards and the Penkhull ward and to demonstrate that, if we could map even some of that housing stock, it would show a huge proliferation of out-of-family homes. We are pushing Stoke-on-Trent city council to introduce a saturation limit and to say that, although permissions might still be granted, certain streets would have a certain threshold over which the number of HMOs could not go.
Unfortunately, we are getting nowhere. I ask the Minister this: where councils are reticent to undertake such work themselves, could there be a mechanism whereby local communities could trigger a process so that, where people know there is a problem, it can be addressed from a grassroots level?
Supporting High Streets
Gareth Snell Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In a polycentric city such as Stoke-on-Trent, we have six town centres, as well as many other areas of trade. One big thing that affected us under the last Conservative Government—we also had a Conservative council in Stoke-on-Trent—was the closure of five of the six town-centre police stations, which made those town centres feel unsafe, and the complete hollowing out of our bus network, which meant that many people could not get to the town centres to spend their hard-earned money in the shops. Could the Minister set out what this Government are doing to reverse those terrible trends under the last Government?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for setting out all the failures and mistakes that we are now having to fix. We are very conscious of that. That is why, through our Pride in Place strategy, for example, we introduced an action plan that was fundamentally about how we build strong communities, create thriving places and allow our communities to take control. As part of that, we are taking new steps to support high streets and town centres. That includes rolling out high street rental auctions, banning unfair upward-only rent review clauses in England and Wales, supporting property owners to establish business improvement districts, reforming the compulsory purchase process and land compensation rules to allow local authorities to shape their high streets, and opening a new co-operative development unit within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to help our communities take greater control and ownership of their high streets. The problems in our high streets so often stem from the “we know best” attitude that we saw from the last Government over 14 years, so the answer must be to hand power to communities.
Property Service Charges
Gareth Snell Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dave Robertson
My hon. Friend is right. She is a very good friend, and often she has seen speeches before I give them, but she has not seen this one, and she gives me the perfect segue into my next point.
Transparency is so important. When I surveyed residents in the affected estate, 85% told me that billing was either poor or very poor. Some 79% have told me that the management of the estate was poor or very poor. I have written to that management company, and I am looking forward to meeting it, because its written response is simply not good enough.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Much like my hon. Friend in Staffordshire, I have constituents who are under the same management company. Even when trying to use mechanisms to see things, such as by a section 21 request under the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985, they have been ignored and dismissed, or often are given incorrect information. Does my hon. Friend hope, like I do, that when the Minister sums up, he will talk a little bit about the technical measures for holding these organisations to account and why they are not working so well? Enforcement of the existing rules should be enough. Whether or not those should be changed, there are mechanisms available that my constituents are trying to access that are simply not working.
Dave Robertson
My hon. Friend is well apprised over the specific issue. Part of the issue we may be facing is that he refers to an Act of Parliament that is older than either of us. There may be significant space for an update in this area.
It is clear from my hon. Friends’ comments and from everything we have heard this afternoon that this situation is all too common. Up and down the country, managing agents are just letting people down. The long-term solution has to be councils taking on the management of these estates themselves. It is an absolute travesty that we have a bizarre situation where some people are being charged twice for the same service.
Last week, other Labour MPs and I met the House Builders Federation to discuss this issue, and I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) for organising that. The message that came out of that was clear that adoption is holding up those companies, too. They want to see adoptions happening faster. There are massive issues with how they are approached for things. We heard one story of a particular local authority that demands semi-permeable paving as part of its planning process, but its highways department will apparently never adopt anything with semi-permeable paving. That is a totally bizarre situation. It is a case not of two councils but of one organisation where the different parts are not talking to each other.
Councils need to work harder on this issue. They need to ensure that they are working with residents and companies to get it right, but they also need to have the money and expertise to be able to do so. Fourteen years of cuts, freezes and austerity on councils have left planning departments hollowed out, and we need to ensure we are rebuilding that capacity so that things can be done correctly. It is important that we take this issue seriously, so that residents in my constituency and across the country get the service they so deeply need, for which they apparently are paying through the nose.
Housing: North Staffordshire
Gareth Snell Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) on securing the debate and commend her for managing to fit a phenomenal number of issues into that very brief speech.
In general terms, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government want to see more plan-led development and want development generally to provide all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities. While there is much more to be done, I trust that she recognises that the Government have already taken decisive steps to deliver on those objectives.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am unable to comment on individual local development plans or individual planning applications in her constituency due to the role of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system, but I will seek to respond to as many of the general points that she raised as I can. If there are any that I am unable to cover in the time that I have, I will happily write to her with further detail.
I very much welcome the fact that the local planning authorities that cover parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency are all taking forward draft local plans. It is really important that local plans are put in place, and at speed. Having an up-to-date local plan, or, where one is not in place, ensuring that one is brought forward quickly, is the best way for a community to shape the development required in its area. Where local plans are not up to date or in place, there is a detrimental impact on individuals and communities. We really need to drive that point home: it is not cost-free to not have a local plan in place.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I commend to the Minister the draft local plan in Stoke-on-Trent, which is very bold. It recognises that there is an acute waiting list for housing in Stoke-on-Trent, and that we need to build the houses that we need for local people, so that generations of families can live there. The council is taking some tough decisions and building on pieces of land that residents would not ordinarily want built on, but that is one of the trade-offs for having a growing city.
The Minister and I spoke about an urban development corporation covering Hanley, in Stoke-on-Trent, to allow land assembly in order to bring derelict brownfield sites back into use and build the homes that we need. Is that a conversation that we can pick up again? The opportunity is there with the local plan, but it just might need a shove from the centre to help get it over the line.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am more than happy to pick up that conversation and see where we have got to. For the reasons I have already given, I will not be able to comment on the local plan in question, but suffice it to say that we have a local plan-led planning system, and such a system operates effectively only if coverage of up-to-date local plans is extensive.
My hon. Friends will no doubt be aware that the Government inherited a system in which less than a third of local plans were up to date. We have taken decisive steps to progress towards our ambition of universal local plan coverage, both by providing local planning authorities that are striving to do the right thing with financial support and by intervening where necessary to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible. We are also introducing a faster and clearer process for preparing local plans, which will set a clear expectation that local plans—as well as minerals and waste plans, it should be said—should be routinely prepared and adopted within 30 months. Other aspects of the reforms—such as the introduction of gateways; shorter, simpler and standardised content focused on the core principles of plan making; and a series of digital transformation initiatives—will support that aim.
I very much commend the efforts being made in the area in question to get the local plan in place. As I said, where local plans are not up to date, and where LPAs are not delivering in line with the needs of their communities, areas are open to speculative development. It is right that, in those circumstances, development comes forward outside of plans—the homes our country needs cannot be put on hold—but we have made it clear that that is not a route to poor-quality housing, and we have added new safeguards to the presumption in the national planning policy framework in order to ensure that.
It must also be said that the absence of an up-to-date local plan does not remove the need for local planning authorities to consider the use of conditions or planning obligations to make otherwise unacceptable developments acceptable. That can include the provision of necessary site-specific infrastructure at appropriate trigger points in development. Local planning authorities already have enforcement powers to ensure compliance with such provisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South mentioned a number of issues in relation to brownfield development—development on previously developed land—as well as green-belt development. It should be said at the outset that, like all Governments over the last few decades, this Government have a brownfield-first approach to development. We want, in all cases, local authorities to exhaust their options for brownfield development. Indeed, we are making that easier: we made changes to the NPPF in December, and we have consulted on what we call a brownfield passport—essentially a means of making sure that, when applications on brownfield land are suitable, the default answer should be a straightforward yes.
Matthew Pennycook
I am looking forward to that meeting. The relevant diary slots have moved around on several occasions, but I will ensure that it takes place in the very near future. We can discuss that and other issues.
Because we recognise the value that communities place on green-belt land, we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary development on it must deliver high levels of affordable housing; the provision of new green spaces, or improvements to existing green spaces, that are accessible to the public; and necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure. Our new golden rules, which are the mechanism by which we will deliver that public gain, will apply where a major housing development is proposed on green-belt land, released either through plan making or subject to a planning application.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make this the final intervention; otherwise, I will not be able to cover all of the many topics that were raised.
Gareth Snell
While the Minister is talking about green-belt land, I want to talk about the Stoke-on-Trent local plan. Berryhill Fields in my constituency has been given a reprieve from previous Conservative plans to build. Other green spaces in Stoke-on-Trent could be protected if there was a way of passporting the Homes England compulsory purchase powers to local authorities so that they could do land assembly in built-up urban areas where landowners who have no interest in building houses in the city are sitting on great swathes of land, which are just causing nuisance and antisocial behaviour. That would help with housebuilding, but also with urban and economic regeneration. If the Minister looked at that, Stoke-on-Trent would probably be up for being a pilot area and seeing what could be done.
Matthew Pennycook
It is probably worth me writing to my hon. Friend. The Government have undertaken a number of reforms—building, it has to be said, on reforms made by the previous Government in the last Parliament—to compulsory purchase powers. Some of those powers are novel; not many places, if any, have tried some of the new powers that I have brought into force. We are very encouraging of any local authorities that want to explore them. Let me set them out in writing to my hon. Friend so that he has the full detail.
In the time left, I want to address a couple of other issues that were raised, starting with infrastructure provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South made clear, communities across the country want to see infrastructure delivered as early in the development process as possible rather than as an afterthought. The provision of infrastructure is incredibly important. The NPPF sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. The revised NPPF we published last year also supports the increased provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure.
Planning practice guidance recommends that, when preparing a local plan, local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare what is known as an infrastructure funding statement. Such statements can be used to demonstrate the delivery of infrastructure through the plan period. There is already detailed guidance and an infrastructure funding statement template on the planning advisory service website. However, the chief planner has written to local planning authorities to remind them of their statutory duty to prepare and publish an infrastructure funding statement where they receive developer contributions via section 106 or community infrastructure levy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South knows, the Government also provide financial support for essential infrastructure in areas of greatest housing demand through land and infrastructure funding programmes, such as the housing infrastructure fund. The Government are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure. We will set out further details on that specific point in due course.
My hon. Friend mentioned the issue of section 106 moneys. While there is a variety of entirely legitimate reasons why local planning authorities may be holding unspent developer contributions, including to facilitate the effective delivery of phased development projects, we recognise the need to ensure that the contributions that developers make to mitigate the impact of development and make it acceptable in planning terms are used effectively and in a timely manner. Local planning authorities are expected to use all the funding received by way of planning obligations. Individual agreements should normally include clauses stating when and how the funds will be used and allow for their return after an agreed period of time where they are not.
The planning advisory service, funded by my Department, provides support to local planning authorities in the governance of developer contributions. Any local planning authority that receives a contribution from development through section 106 planning obligations must prepare and publish an infrastructure funding statement at least annually. Reporting on developer contributions helps local communities and developers see how contributions have been spent—and, in some circumstances, underspent—and what future funds will be spent on, ensuring a transparent and accountable system. I know from my own constituency, and I hear from many hon. Members, that what communities want is transparency about where those funds go and certainty that they are being spent on the right mitigations to ensure that development is made acceptable. As I said, we will bring forward further reforms to strengthen the section 106 system so that councils are better placed to strike those agreements and ensure that developers are held to the commitments they make.
My hon. Friend raised a number of other issues, including empty homes. I am more than happy to write to her on them. Community right to buy is not my responsibility as a Minister, but I will get the appropriate Minister in my Department to provide her with an update. She rightly mentioned the provisions in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which recently had its Second Reading.
I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate and other hon. Members for taking part. There is clearly a shared set of issues among a set of colleagues that needs addressing. I am more than happy to pick up conversations, and to meet them as a group rather than individually if that is useful, since some common concerns have been raised. I thank my hon. Friend for the clarity with which she expressed the concerns of her constituents and the points that she made.
I emphasise once again that the Government are in complete agreement with my hon. Friend on the importance of plan-led development that provides the necessary infrastructure, amenities and services that communities want. If they get those things—this will not be the case for all her constituents, as it is not the case for all of mine, but it will be true in lots of cases—and we ensure that we get better development as well as more development, that will be a way to assuage some of the concerns that communities have about what housebuilding in their area means. I look forward to continuing to engage with her to ensure that the changes the Government have already made, along with those to come, of which there are many, are of lasting benefit to her constituents as well to as others in the region.
Question put and agreed to.
Post-industrial Towns
Gareth Snell Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I think the fact that so many Members are in the Chamber for an Adjournment debate shows the importance of this subject.
While she is talking about the immediate outputs needed, can I make my usual plea to Members on the Treasury Bench via you, Mr Speaker? When the industrial strategy—which is so important to all our communities—comes, it must address the chronic, crippling effect of industrial energy prices, which are hurting so many of the manufacturing sectors we have mentioned today. Whether it is in Bassetlaw, in Stoke-on-Trent or even in Chorley, there will be businesses that are struggling. I know that my hon. Friend agrees, but when the Minister addresses us later, I hope she will be able to confirm that industrial energy prices will be dealt with in the industrial strategy, to benefit us all.
Disadvantaged Communities
Gareth Snell Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
I have sat through many similar debates about communities that have challenges. They are often cathartic but also a Top Trumps of misery in which we each seek to parade around the acute nature of the challenges we face in our communities, not because we want to say how challenging things are in our communities, but because the funding situation the last Government implemented basically meant that unless we could demonstrate that we were the poorest of the poor, the most disadvantaged of the disadvantaged, or in some way an outlier from statistical norms, we got nothing. The barrel was left empty or, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), we had to go through the ignominy of begging bowl politics.
We were put into competition with our nearest neighbours, and ended up trying to deprive them of what they needed so that we could get a little more of what we needed. That often led to a lack of joined-up working among communities whereby we could have had structural and societal change in the places we all call home and love and represent. Instead, we ended up trying to demonstrate why Stoke-on-Trent should get something and Derby should not, because we are slightly poorer than Derby is. That has to fundamentally change, because the systemic problems that we face in our communities—which derive from poverty, if we are being entirely honest—are going to be solved only if we are able to come together collectively, with a national programme of investment that targets the root causes of those problems and allows communities to have the skills, resources and opportunities to build themselves up.
There is a catalogue of concerns in Stoke-on-Trent: we are first for fuel poverty, routinely in the top 10 for child poverty and food bank usage, and in the last year our Lord Mayor had to raise £50,000 to pay for kids to have beds in our city. That is a symptom of a struggling society—one that was let down by the last Government and one that I hope, under the leadership of the Minister and the new Labour Government, we can start to turn around. We owe it to a generation to tackle poverty head on, so that we do not have more debates about how disadvantaged we all are.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure, once again, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) on securing this debate and bringing in many Members, who have articulated clearly their concerns about a variety of issues across their constituencies.
We all recognise that relieving poverty is one of the oldest and most central functions of our country’s local authorities; it has been enshrined in their duties since their inception. Many Members have referred to programmes of the past—under the last Labour Government, the coalition Government and the Conservative Government —and this debate, fundamentally, is about how we tackle this most effectively. There is no view that these issues are not important; it is simply a question about the most effective way of bringing about that relief, which we all wish to see. Indeed, levelling up, which was fundamentally about all these issues, was a key policy priority for the last Conservative Government, although it was one which, I have to acknowledge in all humility, we did not succeed in delivering in all the ways we wished to. None the less, there were some successes.
When we debate these issues in a political context, we always need to remember that it is not simply a matter of funding, as important as that is. In Wales, for example, the Government have had the benefit of an £1,800 premium over the rest of the UK in public spending. Wales has had a Labour Government for 25 years, and these issues are consistently worse in Wales—where I grew up—than they are in England. So how we spend the money to address these issues is almost as fundamental as the quantum of that spending.
Gareth Snell
I have always found the hon. Gentleman to be a diligent shadow Minister, and I appreciate him taking this intervention. He mentioned levelling up, and Stoke-on-Trent was one of the cities that genuinely got one of the larger allocations. The challenge was that it was mainly capital, so it allowed us to build things, but it did not allow us to have the revenue stream to staff those things to provide services. Would he welcome any move by this Government—I suspect that this is coming—to put more into revenue funding to support communities, rather than giving them the capital for big shiny things that look nice but do not actually improve the lives of people in our communities?
Coalfields Regeneration Trust
Gareth Snell Excerpts(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. My wife is from Northern Ireland, so when he said he was making inquiries, I was worried how far that was going to go. He raises a very important point, both about the power of British coal and the importance of Newcastle-under-Lyme for many parts of our United Kingdom.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
To follow the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), it is about not just the contribution that those communities made to our energy needs, but the pride that those communities had in the work that they did. One of the successful parts of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust’s work, certainly in North Staffordshire, has been allowing the communities who had so much taken from them with the closure of the pits to restore some of that by controlling their own destiny and the sorts of regeneration that came, including through the industrial units that we now have near Silverdale in his constituency. That was done by John Prescott and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and it has allowed communities to once again have pride in where they live and what they do. This work was done with them, rather than to them. When the Minister responds, could he say something about how the next stage of work in the coalfield communities could be done with the communities, rather than to them? I think we would all be interested in that.
Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend and neighbour makes the important point that this is about pride, power and people. The sooner we see the Government respond positively to his calls and to the calls of many on the Labour Benches, the better.
Wages in the former coalfield communities are 6% to 7% lower than the national average. There is a shortage of quality jobs, as we have heard, leading to a brain drain, as working-age residents with degree-level qualifications leave to find jobs elsewhere. This is a dangerous cycle; our young people are forced to leave their communities to find the best jobs. It leaves communities like mine losing out not just on economic growth, but on the energy and dynamism that young people bring to the job market.
Local Government Finance
Gareth Snell Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake
I can only reiterate what the hon. Gentleman has said and what I said earlier: they do fine work and most do not do it for money but because they have the interests of their local communities at heart. That should always be the case, and those are the kind of councillors that we want. Where people have expenses to do their jobs, that needs to be properly compensated for.
Will the Minister accept that the majority of the extra money provided through the settlement is raised through council tax increases, which are effectively taxes on local taxpayers—that is, working people? As he is sensible and considered, does he regret the fact that the Prime Minister stood on a stage in Swindon on 30 March 2023 with the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, stating that he would freeze council tax for the first year they were in Government? That has not been the case. The Prime Minister quite clearly promised
“a tax cut for the 99 per cent of working people who are facing a rise in their council tax”.
His words were also that there would be
“not one penny on your council tax”.
We said then that those promises were not worth the paper they were written on. How right we were.
Under Labour, typical council tax bills are to rise by 5% in April 2025, in another increased tax on working people. That means that the average household faces an above-inflation increase of around £100 in their council tax bills in that year. All that will do in many cases is fill the black hole in council finances that Labour is creating due to an increase in national insurance contributions. Furthermore, it is quite clear that Labour is deliberately funding largely Labour-led urban areas at the expense of rural areas.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is one of the more reasonable of his party’s Front Benchers—not that he needs my praise.
Between 2010 and 2024, Stoke-on-Trent city council had a cumulative loss of £411 million. In cash terms, if the budget had been frozen and there had been no increases, we would have had that much more in spend. Does the shadow Minister accept that the damage that his party did in local government cannot simply be fixed in one settlement after seven months of a Labour Government?
Kevin Hollinrake
I have spoken before about the financial pressures all councils are under. That is principally due to rising demand on services; that is the reality. Eighty per cent of discretionary spend is on the three areas I referred to earlier. There is no doubt that there are challenging circumstances. Nevertheless, the vast majority of money raised through the settlement is through council tax, and much of the money raised for core spending power will go on national insurance rises. There are direct costs, but there are also indirect costs that are not covered. Many councils will be worse off as a result.
Kevin Hollinrake
I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was talking about fairness, which we all believe in. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) will have a different perspective on fairness from other people. The reality is that there is a political division here. One thing that we must agree on is that the statutory duties on councils should be properly funded. My concern is that that will not be the case, and lots of those pressures fall differently on rural councils compared with urban councils.
Gareth Snell
Under the formula that has been proposed and on which we will vote this evening, Stoke-on-Trent city council will receive a recovery grant of £8.2 million. I hope that the shadow Minister is not saying that, were the Conservative party still in Government, we would not receive that additional cash, and would therefore be £8.2 million worse off.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is interesting, because the loss of the rural service delivery grant cost my local authority £14 million, so it depends where we draw the line and what the priorities are. The change in the rural services delivery grant is robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is the reality.
Mr Forster
I thank the Minister for admitting that the 0.3% rise in DCN funding is happening. I do not think he can say that the Liberal Democrats and I are looking both ways on unitarisation, based on the statement earlier and the questions that took this debate later than Members might have wanted. We have concerns about unitarisation, particularly about the way that the Government are doing it. Fundamentally, we welcome reform of local government, but it cannot be imposed on councils and local areas, and we are concerned that that is happening. My county council, Surrey county council, has 14 days of reserves left—that is how bad of a state its finances are in. The Minister has talked about the past 14 years; I am more worried about the 14 days until my local authority, which is protecting vulnerable elderly people and children, will run out of money.
Social care is another area where the previous Government failed miserably, and I worry that Labour is set to repeat the same mistakes. Councils that provide social care are supposed to be better off under this settlement, but the reality is that demand for care is rising, costs are soaring, and local authorities are still struggling to meet their legal needs—I am sure all Members know that from their casework, and we see it time and again in tribunals. The Government’s allocation of funding for social care is simply not enough, and their refusal to commit to long-term reform, and particularly to have a long-term inquiry, will make the problem worse, not better.
On top of that, local authorities are saddled with extra costs from the Government’s policies. The increases in national insurance contributions will push up payroll costs for councils across the country, yet the Government’s package of support is lacking. Councils will be short of hundreds of millions of pounds just from NI contributions, and once again they will be pushed to increase council tax or cut services.
The Liberal Democrats are concerned that rural councils will suffer as a result of the Government’s decision to remove the rural services delivery grant in favour of the new recovery grant. The new grant will be allocated through a need and demand basis, and we are concerned that that will exclude rural councils from critical funding because it does not consider the specific reasons that the delivery of services is more expensive in rural areas.
Gareth Snell
Stoke-on-Trent will get £8 million from the recovery grant, and we are the fifth poorest city in the country. The hon. Member and I want to see services in our communities funded, so I urge him not to fall into the false trap that the Conservatives are setting by trying to pit our councils against one another. I want services, and he wants services; we need to agree to fund them properly and not be put into some sort of “Hunger Games” competition.
Mr Forster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful contribution. We should not have councils competing against each other, but although we have to recognise deprivation, and local government funding should be linked to that, we also have to recognise the cost of delivering services. Our fear is that removing the rural services delivery grant will not do that.
Last year the rural services delivery grant provided £110 million to rural councils to compensate for the vast rural areas that they serve, but this means that they will now face higher costs. We are concerned about, and it will leave rural communities and residents struggling, with fewer services and higher taxes. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to provide rural councils with the funding settlement they need.
The Liberal Democrats believe in properly funding local government so that we can care for the people we need to care for, house the people we need to house, and protect vulnerable residents. I thank the Minister and his officials for putting the funding settlement together. It is a step in the right direction and an improvement on what we have seen, but as I think the Minister will concede, it couldn’t not be—it was always going to be better. This is a step in the right direction, but the challenges we face as a society and a country are huge, and the Liberal Democrats and I need to hold the Government to account to make sure that this is the last one-year single financial settlement. We need to make sure that social care is properly funded. That does not mean kicking the can down the road in three years’ time. It means that the homelessness strategy that we are promised in July genuinely solves the problem, genuinely tackles prevention, and is fully funded.
We also need to tackle special educational needs on a long-term, cross-party basis, not kick the can down the road, which is the fear for those issues. I was pleased that the Minister agreed—almost conceded—to have a cross-party review into the council tax system. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) highlighted that his constituents in a band H property are charged £3,000 more than for a band H property in London, which is unacceptable. It is well known that Buckingham Palace pays the same level of council tax as an average three-bedroom semi-detached in Blackpool. That is not reasonable. We must fundamentally tackle those issues.
The Liberal Democrats and I are immensely grateful for the councillors and council staff who give up their time and their lives to shape their communities. We cannot let them down in this House, and they need to be fully funded going forward.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I am pleased to follow my very hard-working, excellent deputy on the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who has huge knowledge on local government matters. In fact, whenever we come to local government matters in the Committee, we always defer to him.
I echo the opening remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) about our hard-working councillors up and down the country, whatever their political persuasion. Often, they work many hours and do not get much pay for it. They do it because they want to improve the lot of their local communities, so I warmly welcome that. I even echo his opening remarks to the Local Government Minister, who I always think is a fair and reasonable man. He has dealt with this matter in a knowledgeable and professional way, and I pay tribute to him.
I want to pick up on a couple of things from the excellent speech by the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). She is very knowledgeable on this whole matter. First, the local health grant, which has been picked up by others, is peanuts in comparison with the total health budget, but if we can keep the population more healthy through the things that she said and other preventive measures, it would be far better for them and far cheaper for the country in the longer run. I do not know why Governments of all colours have not paid more attention to that.
Secondly, I want to pick up on local housing allowances, which the hon. Member for Sheffield South East also mentioned. As he said, the impact on homelessness has not really been calculated, which our PAC report made perfectly clear. The Minister needs to look at that relationship and how we can get a closer, more targeted local housing allowance or another allowance to alleviate the problem of some of the poorest in our society who cannot afford the houses that they live in, and who have to be subsidised to a considerable extent by the local authority, putting even more pressure on it.
Often, local government is not understood by our constituents, but they certainly know when they are not getting the services they pay for from their council. Council tax bills are increasing up and down the country. I was shocked to read that some people’s council tax is going up by as much as 10%, as the Secretary of State has given permission to override the legislation in place for a referendum to be called if council tax is raised by more than 5%. I remind the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton did, that the Prime Minister stated in Bristol that he would freeze council tax bills for all. Clearly, that is not the case. I would love it if he was able to, but clearly when he said it, it was not realistic.
The Public Accounts Committee, which I have the great honour to chair on behalf of this House to try to expose how the taxpayer’s pound is spent—well or not, as the case may be—has taken a strong interest in local government. We will shine a light on the areas needed, as will the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee. Together, hopefully we can make a real positive difference in the way that services are delivered for people up and down this country.
It is clear that local government finances have increasingly become more dependent on council tax rather than central Government grants. I listened to the speech by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) about his local council, but it cannot be denied that some councils have managed their budgets better than others.
I welcome the multi-year settlements that this Government have introduced. We often criticise the Government, but I think these settlements will be warmly welcomed by councils, and would, I think, be welcomed in other areas of Government spending, too. Like a business, local authorities will be able to plan, investing taxpayers’ money into longer-term projects with more certainty, and therefore hopefully using money more efficiently.
I urge the Government in their review of the funding formula to keep in mind the rural-urban divide, which we have had quite a lot of discussion about this evening. In what I am going to say, I do not to wish pit one council against another in any way—that is not the object of what I am saying. I simply say that if we put the emphasis more on one facet and less on the other, we will benefit some councils and disadvantage others. The problem with rural councils is that in many cases it costs more for them to deliver services, which is not properly reflected in the grant. Even the House of Commons Library says that scrapping the rural service grant and replacing it with a recovery grant already demonstrates a divide. According to the Library, which is supposed to be independent, the change in methodology for allocating money has meant that rural areas are losing out to urban areas and city centres.
Now, I do not want to get into deep water, but a need is a need. Adult and children’s social services, which have been mentioned today, are both high-consuming, voluntary parts of the budget, and are increasing. If the Government take away the needs basis and put it into deprivation basis, they will benefit some councils and disadvantage others. I repeat: a need is a need. That includes adult social services and children’s social services; it also includes SEND—our Committee produced a report on SEND, which said the system is broken—which is a hugely consuming part of the budget, and is consuming a greater and greater percentage.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Just a second. Another part of the budget that is consuming more and more is temporary housing accommodation; this, again, needs a fix in some way or another. Structurally, we cannot let these areas of spending go on unreformed, so that they continue to put huge pressure on the finances of all councils.
I give way to a former member of the Public Accounts Committee.
Gareth Snell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—I did enjoy my time on the Public Accounts Committee.
For two years, I led a small shire district council. We were often told that there would be money for county councils, because that is where the greatest need was in terms of adult and children’s social care, and various other demand-led services. I do not even think the divide is urban-rural; it can sometimes be between county and district, in the same locality. Is this the hon. Gentleman’s quiet way of telling us that when the Government bring forward the orders for reorganisation, his party will be supporting that, to take out that one element of potential divide in our funding systems?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am really pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised the whole business of devolution, because I am going to come on to that at the end of my speech. What I think we should do is build it from the bottom up, as we did, and let local people have a real say in what they want for the future of the delivery of their local services. I am going to say a little bit more about that and ask the Local Government Minister some quiet questions about it at the end.
I turn to a matter that is bread and butter for the Public Accounts Committee, which the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, also raised, which is the whole business of local auditing. Without proper auditing, there is no guarantee that all the money—I say “all the money”, but I just mean “the money”—that councils get from both council tax and local government grants, in one form or another, is being spent wisely and providing value for money. The shocking position that we find ourselves in with local auditing at the moment is not, I think, helping the whole system.
The Public Accounts Committee recently held an evidence session on the whole of Government accounts, as the hon. Lady referred to, where we found that 44% of councils did not submit any data at all to those whole of Government accounts, and that 46% of accounts had not been audited for nearly five years, in some councils’ cases. The Local Government Minister has laid before the House measures to ameliorate the timing of producing local audits. Hopefully, we can get to a situation where we can start those local audits and get a set of figures we can begin to rely on. The next year, once we have started with an established set of figures, we hopefully ought to be able to get a properly audited set of accounts.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
How on earth does one follow that? I just wish that the hon. Gentleman had spoken up so we could all hear him. He made points about councils raising council tax, selling assets and cutting services. Does he believe that has happened to Bradford in isolation? Does he believe that his is the only council that has looked at its services and budget and said, “This is tough”? What he actually described is eight years of Conservative rule in Stoke-on-Trent, where council tax went up in eight years out of eight, town halls were closed and put up in fire sales, children’s services were on the brink, and a record number of children were in care. What he has described is a fate that every council faced, and the predominant reason is that his party in government took the scissors to the Budget, slashed the services we all had and decided that they knew better. He may make a fiery speech in this place for social media clips, but perhaps he needs to—
Gareth Snell
No, I will not give way. We have heard plenty from the hon. Gentleman over the last several minutes. He needs to think less about detaching his constituency from Bradford and more about reattaching himself to the reality of the situation that he put us all in.
I welcome the fact that Stoke-on-Trent city council has received £8 million through the recovery grant, and I have listened with great interest particularly to the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Woking (Mr Forster) about the impact on the rural services delivery grant. I go back to the point I have raised before: we have to move ourselves away from this confected game of Top Trumps that the Conservatives wanted us to have—that deprivation in Stoke-on-Trent is somehow in competition with the needs of rural communities. The Government’s trajectory—with the fair funding review, and a look at how and why we end up with the funding settlements we have—will take us towards that place. I know that it will not be immediate, and I fully accept that there are always winners and losers in everything, but my city is one of the five poorest cities in the country.
Ninety per cent of homes in my city are band A. Every time we raise council tax by 4.99%, it raises less proportionally than when my neighbouring district council authorities and the county council raise it by 4.99%. Not only are we not getting the benefit of having band B through to band E; we are also seeing the difference of what is paid in neighbouring authorities grow every year. That is simply unfair—a system that nobody would design in that particular way.
I was first elected to a council in 2010. In fact, the Minister was the peer mentor appointed to my council by the LGA. I suppose that is why I am here and not running a council. We were shown the “jaws of doom” graph demonstrating just how challenging financing was going to be over the next decade, and the predictions that my party made then have turned out to be true. Had the last Government frozen in cash terms alone—no uprates, no decreases—the amount of money we were receiving in 2010 and kept it at that rate until 2024, we would have had £411 million to spend on various projects. Instead, we lost that money. We then had this perverse idea that suddenly we had to start bidding to get some of it back through a levelling-up fund.
If we had had £411 million over those 10 years, the economic regeneration of my towns and city centres would have happened. We would not have had to come cap in hand to a Government to ask for capital funding to build a car park or a new hotel. We simply would have done the things that we needed to do over time in a way that fitted with the other projects we were seeking to deliver. We did not have that; instead, we got levelling up, which in my city was basically a car park, which now costs the council more money than it raises because of where it is and how many people use it.
We should learn from those lessons. I welcome every penny given to my city by every Department. The disabled facilities grant money announced by the Department of Health and Social Care is helpful, but the council administers that to keep people safe in their homes so they do not end up in A&E. We could look at how we join up public spending, in Total Place based way, in order to drive those efficiencies and productivity gains that will make the system of public sector provision much better.
When we look at the funding for local government, I urge the Minister as part of the next phase to think about how we stop the shuffling of wooden dollars. As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) said, it is local authorities that provide the youth clubs that stop young people going into crime and antisocial behaviour, which then costs much more through the criminal justice system later on. It is local authorities that do the checks on houses to make sure that they are safe and decent, so that people do not end up in A&E because they have lived in cold, damp houses. It is local authorities that make sure that the restaurants we go to meet the food hygiene standards that we want, and that the products we buy are being checked by trading standards. Those services keep us safe and well, and prevent much greater public sector costs further on, so how we fund the public sector, with a Total Place approach, has to be part of the Government’s thinking.
Let me end my short contribution to the debate with this. We in Staffordshire today received the letter that the Minister sent about reorganisation and devolution. Reorganisation in Staffordshire could be a long, drawn-out process because basically no one can agree on anything, and we all pretend we like each other but the secret is that we do not. The comments from council leaders and other Staffordshire MPs about Stoke-on-Trent have been appalling. We are a lovely place and want to work with everybody. We will undoubtedly end up in some form of North Staffordshire combined authority that makes sense logically, economically, geographically and socially—it is where people live, work, and enjoy themselves.
When the Minister invites new proposals from local authorities and there is an appetite for them but one or two councils are holding out—perhaps because some people are more interested in protecting their jobs as leaders than in protecting the jobs of the people we represent—I urge him to move at pace and make it quite clear that we will not wait for them. My constituents deserve the same level of investment that goes into the west midlands, east midlands, Manchester and Liverpool combined authority regions. Without it, we will get further left behind. My constituency is, as I said, the fifth poorest in England. I do not want to be standing here after the next election saying that my constituency is still the fifth poorest in England. I hope that, with this Government, we can make sure that it is not.