Leaving the EU: Protection for Workers

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for having initiated this conversation through her amendment to the previous motion, and I think a fruitful discussion has come from that. On the ability to cherry-pick those measures that are adopted by the European Union that might find favour with the Government but not those that do not, the requirement would be to report everything that the European Union has adopted during a six-month period and for the Government to have to make a statement in respect to all of those measures. The motion that would then be required to be put before the House would be amendable. The Government might say that they intended to implement one measure, to apply in a different way another, but to reject a third. That motion would be amendable, so the House could alter the Government’s intention and express its view directly. As for the direct access for workers to these procedures, I made a commitment to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) that we would work together to see what can be done on that, and I am sure that the right hon. Lady will want to be part of those conversations.

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

I actually whipped the minimum wage Bill through Committee on that occasion, so I well remember Conservative hostility to it.

What the Secretary of State is really promising today is future consultation and future opportunities for votes. Looking behind him, I do not see a great deal of commitment from those Benches to such measures. Why can he not go further? Why can he not agree to put a commitment into the withdrawal agreement and the treaty that the UK will never fall behind EU minimum standards on workers’ rights either now or in future? I know that he has mentioned parliamentary sovereignty and not binding future Parliaments but, historically, Governments have negotiated treaties and Parliaments have approved them and those treaties are binding on future Parliaments until they choose to withdraw from them. Why can we not have that sort of arrangement?

[Greg Clark]

We are talking about legislation here, not the treaty, and the withdrawal agreement has already been established. In the future economic partnership, there is a negotiation to be conducted—it is specified there—on our level of alignment when it comes to workers’ rights, but this is in advance of that. This provides an opportunity at the point of withdrawal to give Parliament the ability to make sure that it takes an informed view of whether it wants to continue to be aligned. That is a valuable opportunity. The hon. Gentleman says that we should do it now with the treaty. That is part of the next phase of the negotiations. It is taking all the Government’s efforts to conclude the withdrawal agreement, without being able to conclude the future partnership in the next few weeks. But this is an important opportunity to establish, in primary legislation, a requirement properly to consider all new regulations that would come from the European Union and to assess the compatibility of legislation that we make in this House with that of the rest of the European Union. That, it seems to me, is a valuable opportunity.

Nuclear Update

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

As I said to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), I recognise that this is a sad time for the staff, who are expert and well respected in their fields. This is a financing decision, and it is no reflection on the quality of their work. They are of the highest calibre.

Of course I will come to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents to discuss how we can make sure that his part of the world, as well as north Wales, continues to have the reputation for excellence in energy that it has long enjoyed.

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

The Secretary of State made some very supportive comments in his statement about small modular reactors, which I welcome. I thank him for meeting me recently to discuss the ideas put forward by Professor Keith Ridgway and others at the nuclear advanced manufacturing research centre in Sheffield for ways in which we can develop capacity to produce the parts for SMRs in Sheffield. The Secretary of State has issued supportive words about that, but will he now go further and get his officials to work with Professor Ridgway and others to develop these plans, which would be good for both our energy policy and our industrial strategy?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I visited the nuclear advanced manufacturing research centre, as he knows, and I was impressed with the facilities. The sector deal makes a commitment to new nuclear technologies, and a consortium has made an application to the industrial strategy challenge fund. He understands that the operation of that fund, as with all science and innovation investments, is correctly scrutinised by a panel of global experts. They have given the application a positive assessment, but it has further due diligence to complete. Of course, I will update him and the House when that process has finished.

Nuclear Power

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I anticipated the direction in which my hon. Friend was heading. He will know that, as we have done in this case, we need to offer and obtain value for money for the taxpayer and the consumer. Just as in this case, that is part of the assessment to be made of the tidal lagoon proposal.

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

One aspect of a future nuclear strategy the Secretary of State did not deal with is small modular reactors. I have written him several emails about this. Davy Markham, in my constituency, is one of the few places that can actually machine the largest parts for these reactors, but it is in receivership. The receiver is selling off this capacity, and currently it looks as if it will go overseas. Will the Secretary of State take another look to see what role he and his Department can play in drawing up a plan to save that capacity for this country and make sure it forms an important part of his future industrial strategy, rather than simply being sold off to the highest bidder overseas?

[Greg Clark]

I referred in my statement to the nuclear sector deal and, in particular, investment in innovation in advanced nuclear technologies, which is the area the hon. Gentleman mentions. That initiative, which we will launch with the sector, is forthcoming, and of course I am happy to meet him to discuss the firm in his constituency.

Bombardier

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Yes.

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

As I understand it, the Secretary of State has said that the preferred solution would be a negotiated settlement with Boeing—an all-out war between the UK and Boeing is clearly in no one’s interest. He rightly referred to the development of Boeing’s first manufacturing output facility in Europe—it is in my constituency and work has started on it—but Boeing has been an essential and original player in the development of advanced manufacturing facilities in Sheffield and Rotherham for the past 10 years. It is crucial that we do everything we can to defend and protect the jobs at Bombardier, while doing nothing to compromise the possibility of further development and jobs from Boeing in Sheffield.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I know from having attended the meetings in Sheffield just how important and welcome that investment has been. Nevertheless, we need to be absolutely clear that although advanced manufacturing institutions such as those in and around Sheffield are being established, we expect, just as the Canadian Government do, that if companies participate in institutions that promote the UK aerospace sector, they must not at the same time recklessly damage another important part of that sector.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

If the hon. Lady had attended DCLG questions earlier in the day, she would have heard me confirm that every penny will be made up. I am sure she is delighted to hear that.

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

I asked the Secretary of State about this issue in questions earlier. He said that the cost of small business rate relief in this Parliament would be funded by section 31 grants. Will he confirm that that grant will not come from any other part of local authorities’ budgets, and if it is not will he point out precisely where in the Red Book it says how that is funded?

[Greg Clark]

On page 84, line 15.

Let me turn to the subject of today’s debate, which is infrastructure and devolution. Those issues will still matter a year from now—indeed 10 years and 100 years from now. In “The Wealth of Nations”, Adam Smith spoke of three fundamental duties of Government: the defence of the realm, the maintenance of law and order, and a third duty that he described as follows:

“the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit would never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society.”

We can therefore take it from the father of free market economics that there is no contradiction between faith in free markets and public investment in infrastructure. Indeed, they support one another and this Budget shows how.

The Budget announces new infrastructure investments in every part of the country—from Crossrail 2 in London to High Speed 3 for the northern powerhouse. There can be no more tangible demonstration of our belief in a one-nation economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I want to make some progress.

[Mr Betts]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State gave me a direct answer about where in the Red Book the cost of the compensation for local authorities will come from is specified. He referred to page 84, line 15. However, that deals with the cost of the loss for small business rate relief, and does not deal with the grant that will replace it. Whereabouts is the section 31 grant covered in the Red Book?

[Greg Clark]

I have told the hon. Gentleman where it is—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend can have that reassurance. The package for small businesses in the Budget has been warmly received by small businesses right across the country. It amounts to a reduction of nearly £7 billion over four years, and every penny of that will be made up to local councils, so small businesses will benefit and councils will suffer no detriment.

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

I would like to take the Secretary of State up on that so that he can explain precisely how it will happen. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said the other day that it is perfectly possible to compensate for the changes in small business rate relief at present, while there is grant in play, but that it will be nigh impossible to do that from 2020 onwards, when there will be no grant for the Government to use. Also, how, precisely, will the Secretary of State compensate for the change from RPI to CPI, given that that involves a variable that changes every year? How will the mechanism work?

[Greg Clark]

The answer to the first question is that compensation will be paid in the way that it always has been when we have reduced business rates: as a section 31 grant from Government to local authorities. That mechanism is tried and tested, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and it is the way these sums are always paid. He will also know that, when it comes to the full retention of business rates by 2020, the forecast, as I said, is that there is £26 billion of revenue, and councils retain £13 billion. Therefore, there are transfers that need to be made in, which will be taken into account by the end of the process. However, I know that his Select Committee, and local government generally, will want to help to advise on that.

Local Government Finance (England)

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right. It was a ludicrous situation, whereby local councils levied business rates, collected them and sent them to the Treasury. Local businesses felt that they did not have the same direct connection as council tax payers with their local councils. The best run councils have always had a high regard for promoting business in their areas, and it is high time that they were rewarded and backed for that. The reforms do that.

[Mr Betts]

As the Secretary of State knows, I agree with the proposition that it is important that councils can raise more of their finance locally. It is not a question of whether, but how it should be done. A crucial element is the needs assessment review, which will set the basis for the new system of 100% business rates retention for the future. How does the Secretary of State intend to go about that? Will he fully involve the Local Government Association? Will he consider any independent element to the review to ensure that it is not seen as some sort of stitch-up by Government Members to look after their areas and ignore areas represented by Opposition Members?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman has known me long enough to realise that, when I approach something, I do it seriously and rigorously. I take representations from everyone who has a sensible view to contribute, and I will certainly do that from local governments of all types. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and members of his Select Committee will contribute, as well as hon. Members of all parties who have a great deal of experience and knowledge of their constituents’ needs.

Under the proposed settlement, no council will receive less than was stated in the provisional settlement figures. However, the transition fund will ease the change from a system based on central Government grant to one in which local sources determine a council’s revenue. The fund will be applied in direct proportion to the difference in the revenue support grant that would have been experienced. It is as straightforward as that, whatever the Labour party’s conspiracy theories suggest. Indeed, some Labour-led authorities, including Lancashire, made the proposal. The transition fund will ease the pace of reductions in the first two years of the spending review period, after which income from other sources will grow.

The local government financial settlement is always important. It is the statutory act that allows councils to set their legal budget for the year ahead—the budget to deliver the services that we and our constituents rely on. This year the settlement contains some particularly important changes: indicative budgets for the entire spending review period to make longer-term planning a reality; a big increase in funding for adult social care, which is one of our councils’ most important responsibilities; action to help rural areas and a commitment to all councils that the move to 100% business rate retention will be accompanied by a fundamental review of the needs-based formula; and transition funding to smooth the long-overdue journey from our over-centralised state to a future where all money that is spent locally is generated locally.

Multi-year budgets have been delivered, social care prioritised, rural needs acknowledged, a fair funding review launched, and the devolution of funding advanced, and I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

That was the next point that I was going to make. The Government should consider how the better care fund money could be distributed in a way that would help more poor authorities, but it would also be helpful—I know that the LGA has mentioned this—if more of that money could be provided until at least 2017-18, if not into the next financial year. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that, because current back-end loading is a real problem.

The LGA has drawn my attention to the fact that the council tax base—which relates to the number of properties from which council tax will be raised—is assumed to rise by 7.8%. Will the Government explain precisely how they have made that calculation? It seems a very big increase indeed.

What account have the Government taken of the ability of clinical commissioning groups to help local authorities with their social care spending? In my own authority of Sheffield, the CCG has said that it faces a substantial reduction in its funding against the anticipated level for next year, but this year it is providing the council with £9 million of transfer funding to help it with its added social care provision. If that money is removed, any element from the better care fund or increased council tax will not be a substitute. I think that that is an issue for cross-departmental work.

The settlement will clearly result in cuts. The Secretary of State will argue that they will be less severe than those made in the last Parliament, but, of course, they are in addition to those that have already been made. In the last Parliament, when most of the larger percentage cuts were made in the metropolitan areas, which had the greatest needs and the greatest problems, we never once heard mention of a transitional arrangement to provide extra help for those councils. It has only come about now because the Government have developed a core spending power which includes council tax, and the richer councils happen to be more able to raise council tax. As they have suffered a bigger reduction in revenue support grant as a result of the initial spending announcement, a transitional funding arrangement has suddenly and magically been put in place for them.

[Greg Clark]

I think that, uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman’s memory is letting him down. He should recall that, in the last Parliament, there was a series of tariffs and top-ups to stop the bigger cuts being made. That money was top-sliced from the settlement. What I have now been able to do—and this was recommended by many authorities, including Labour authorities—is bring in new money from outside the settlement, and the hon. Gentleman should welcome that.

[Mr Betts]

I think that in the last Parliament there was a series of ceilings and safety nets, which is traditional in the operation of local government finance. I do not remember any occasion on which it was reported to the House, after the initial settlement, that extra money had been found to help metropolitan Labour councils that were suffering major cuts.

What will happen when the transitional funding comes to an end after the first two years of the settlement? Will the money be found from somewhere else, or will it be absorbed into the new review of needs? The Secretary of State announced that towards the end of the settlement he would effectively end the arrangement for negative revenue support grant, which affected some authorities. Which councils will pay for that, or will the money be found, again, from outside?

The way in which the needs assessment review is carried out is absolutely crucial. The Secretary of State has promised to involve the Select Committee and the LGA. Will he consider introducing an independent element at the outset? Perhaps initial assessments could be carried out by a body such as the Office for Budget Responsibility or the Institute for Fiscal Studies, on a politically neutral basis.

How can we begin to assess this process when we do not know the details of many of the other grants? When, for example, will the public health grant be announced, so that authorities know what they have to spend in that regard?

Let me return to the subject of my own authority in Sheffield. Its spending power is to be cut by 4.3%, which is more than the national average of 2.8%. There is also to be a £25 million cut in its revenue support grant. The reality for Sheffield is another £50 million of cuts in services: cuts in rate support grant plus extra spending needs coming on stream will mean a £50 million cut in services.

This is a very challenging settlement, even for an efficient council such as Sheffield, of which we can be proud. Indeed, we can be proud of the whole of local government for the way in which it has dealt with very challenging spending settlements over a number of years. It has dealt with them in a very efficient way—better than central Government, by and large. However, the cuts that local government is now facing are on top of the cuts it has already had, and they are eventually going to mean more library closures, more run-down parks and a whole number of worsening services.

As Chair of the Select Committee, I want to end on a positive note. The Committee as a whole has said that we want to work closely with the Secretary of State when the new funding arrangements for the 100% retention of business rates are implemented at the end of this Parliament, to ensure that those arrangements are put in place in the best possible way.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and characteristically self-effacing. During his time as a Minister in the Department, he made an enormous contribution to reforming and driving forward decentralisation.

I can confirm that part of the point of the money we have secured for the better care fund is that local authorities and the NHS work closely together, and to recognise that our elderly people, whether they are cared for in hospital, care homes or at home, are our joint responsibility. This provides the opportunity for councils to work together in the interests of our growing elderly population.

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

To show there is some charity, at least on the Labour Benches, I welcome what the Secretary of State says about the ending of double-counting of the Better Care fund. On the four-year settlement, we may have disagreements about the details, but the principle is correct.

May I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the 6% real cuts figure? According to the LGA, it does not take account of increasing demand from the growing number of elderly people, nor of the extra costs imposed on local government by specific central Government policies. I also draw his attention to two other things: the increase in the minimum wage will have a particular impact on the cost of social care, and the pension changes will have a cost in national insurance. Do the Government recognise them as new burdens? If they do not fund them as new burdens, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise there will be extra cuts to local government services that are not recognised in his statement?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. His Select Committee and its predecessors have long called for four-year settlements and the devolution of powers. We have made a choice, advised by local government, on a flat cash settlement over the spending review period to prioritise adult social care. That is what we have done in this settlement. As I made clear when I talked about candour at the beginning of my statement, that of course means that authorities need to continue to make savings in areas outside those for which we have provided extra funds. That is accepted and understood. We have also agreed that they should be at a lower rate than was necessary at the beginning of the previous Parliament. I think local councils will welcome that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

As my hon. Friend knows, the principle that runs throughout the devolution Bill that we have been debating is one of consensus, so the Bill gives me powers to give effect to what local people put forward but not to impose something against their will. It is an enabling piece of legislation, and what it does mean is that Members such as my hon. Friend have the chance to shape the debate locally.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his helpful response. Does he agree that, if the Sheffield city region is to be economically successful, all the districts within it will need to have the right to join the combined authority? Also, if we are to have an elected mayor responsible for transport, should not everyone in that travel-to-work area have the right to participate in the vote for that mayor?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman made similar cogent points in the Committee stage of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South has committed to reflect on those remarks. It has been my experience, when taking Bills through this House, that we should accept the good sense of Members on both sides, and if we can improve the Bill by listening to them, we will certainly do so.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we reflect on years past, we see that when 86% of people aspire to become homeowners it is not just homes for rent that are needed, but affordable homes for purchase. We are correcting what has been a historical anomaly.

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

The Secretary of State quoted what I said in a debate during the previous Parliament, when I did accept that the Government whom I supported for 13 years did not build enough homes, but if he looked at the remainder of the quotation, he would see that I said that the problem was that the coalition Government built even fewer.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

That goes to the point about double devolution made by the hon. Member for Nottingham North. My hon. Friend is right in what she says, and the Housing and Planning Bill contains provisions to strengthen the ability of neighbourhoods to insist on the development of a neighbourhood plan. I hope she will find that welcome.

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

rose—

[Mr Ivan Lewis]

rose—

[Greg Clark]

I am going to make some progress, but I will give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee and others before I finish.

The Bill has been warmly welcomed by local government, business leaders and local leaders of every hue. Lord Peter Smith, the leader of Wigan Council, said the deal with Manchester was “a momentous moment” for Greater Manchester because

“it gives greater control over our own destiny.”

But the Bill is, as we have been discussing, relevant to rural areas, none more so than the great county of Cornwall, where a group of Members of Parliament—it is a good example to Members on all sides—engaged with their local authorities in developing the proposals. The agreement with Cornwall was described by the leader of Cornwall Council as “brilliant news” and “the first stage”—which it is—“of a longer journey” towards further devolution for Cornwall.

In Sheffield—the constituency of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), so it is perhaps a good point to give way to him—James Newman, whom he knows well, the chairman of the local enterprise partnership, said that Sheffield’s agreement put it “at the front of the pack” and would strengthen the position of Sheffield as a “world-class centre for modern manufacturing and engineering”, which it undoubtedly is.

[Mr Betts]

I will not demur in any way from what the Secretary of State has just said. I congratulate him on his efforts over the years to bring about the change that we have seen in the approach to devolution. In a written statement the other day, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the full retention of business rates and the fact that that will mean more resources for local government, but it will require a process of further devolution of powers to take account of the extra expenditure that local authorities will control. Will he say how that will be done? How will local authorities and this House be consulted on the measures to be devolved as part of that arrangement?

[Greg Clark]

That is a very good question, and I am sure we shall have other opportunities to discuss it. Devolving 100% of business rates is more than the grant that goes to local authorities, so it is an opportunity to devolve more powers with the funding to local government. Again, the point of the transfer announcement at this stage is so that we can have a sensible conversation with our colleagues in local government as to what might be the appropriate activities and responsibilities to devolve. I dare say the hon. Gentleman personally and his Committee might have some suggestions to make on that.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I would say to the people of Islington that they should be pleased that the highest rate of affordable house building took place in the last Parliament, and that we will increase that rate during this Parliament.

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

On that point, the Budget changed the future rental income forecast for social housing from the consumer prices index plus 2%, to minus 1%. The National Housing Federation said that that will reduce housing association revenue by £3.9 billion in this Parliament, and that a conservative estimate suggests a reduction of 27,000 homes being built because of measures in the Budget. How does the Secretary of State begin to justify that?

[Greg Clark]

The justification is clear: over the past three years the rate of increase in rents for social tenants was twice that of private tenants. Since 2012-13 the increase in social rents has been 9.1%, and 4.8% for private tenants. It seems not unreasonable to reset the baseline—if I can put it that way—to reflect the experience in the rental sector of people in the country. I would be interested to hear from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East whether the Labour party will share our enthusiasm for the cut in rent for social tenants of 1% a year, when it has been increasing above inflation. It is an important move.

We want to encourage home ownership and build homes that people can afford to buy. We are extending Help to Buy, which has already helped 100,000 people to buy their own home. In autumn we will introduce the new Help to Buy individual savings account, and we will give more than 1 million housing association tenants the right to buy. The Budget and the productivity plan that the Chancellor published on Friday will free up brownfield land for development, speed up the planning system, and deliver thousands of new homes for aspiring homeowners.

Growth Deals

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. There is no stronger advocate for Worcester than my hon. Friend. He will know that the agreement we have with the LEP mentions the importance of improving the capacity of that road, and there is a commitment from the Government to work with local leaders to advance that.

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

May we have a reality check? The extra money for the Sheffield city region—£30 million over a number of years—needs to be put in the context of the £60 million of cuts to Sheffield city council in the next year alone. The Minister is recognised as one of the most committed devolutionists in the Government. We can accept and welcome extra money and extra powers going to our city regions and combined authorities—more money where the decision on how it will be spent is made at the local level not the national level. Will he explain, however, why we cannot have a package of devolution measures that transfers responsibility for raising taxation at a local level in England—this is done in Scotland—and therefore give more powers to local councils in that way? He probably believes that that is the right approach, so why can he not convince his Government colleagues of it?

[Greg Clark]

No, I do not. It is worth pointing out that the total size of the growth deal with Sheffield is £328 million, which is a huge investment; it is a transfer of funds from central Government to the leaders of Sheffield. I do not think that the answer to the problem of creating further opportunities for places outside London is to increase taxes; I think the answer is to take money away from central Government and put it in the hands of people who can make decisions better informed by their local knowledge.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

All I would say is that my hon. Friend is a personal example of someone who makes politics interesting, and there is a good case for his being included in those debates for that reason.

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

11. In a debate on a statutory instrument before Christmas, the Minister indicated that where local authorities needed extra resources to make proper efforts to maximise the number of people on the register, those resources would be available to them. How are they going to go about applying for them—what will the process be?

[Greg Clark]

The process is already under way. There has been an allocation based on the assessed requirement of the local authority, but it has been made very clear that if it produces evidence of why its need is higher, that need will be met. In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, in Sheffield, £240,000 has been allocated on top of what is usually spent on electoral registration for this purpose. If there are any exceptional circumstances, they are being considered by my officials right now.

Infrastructure

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

It is not clear to me whether the hon. Gentleman is criticising PFI. If PFI was initiated by the previous Conservative Government, the champion of it—the party that relied on it and put it off balance sheet, and that misused it and mortgaged the future of our country—was clearly the Labour party.

After 13 years of the Labour Government our roads were more congested, our railways were creaking, house building was at its lowest level since the 1920s and electricity customers were facing black-outs for the first time since before the war. Our great cities were as poorly connected as they had been a century earlier, while across Europe and the world, new roads and railways brought cities together in 21st-century networks of prosperity. As the excellent report published recently by the London School of Economics states,

“infrastructure has been neglected, particularly in the areas of transport and energy. For example, more than a fifth of the UK’s electricity-generating capacity will go out of commission over the next decade and Ofgem…has warned of power shortages by 2015.”

That is the reflection after 13 years of neglect of Britain’s infrastructure.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Clark]

Of course I will give way to my friend the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Mr Betts]

I hope to find a bit of common ground with the Minister. He knows that local authority borrowing is covered by prudential guidelines, apart from borrowing for house building, which is covered by a separate cap imposed by the Treasury. Given that housing finance accounts are now separate, if a local authority were allowed to borrow up to the prudential limits for house building, it could potentially borrow to build another 60,000 homes without any cost to the Treasury. In other countries, that would not even count as Government borrowing. Is the Minister prepared to look at that as one way of kick-starting house building and creating more jobs in the construction industry?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman knows that it does count as Government borrowing in this country, which constrains this Government as it did the previous Government. Being a fair man he will be the first to acknowledge that the work I have been doing with our eight core cities has found innovative ways through tax increment financing and other schemes to invest in infrastructure in anticipation of some of the revenues associated with that. We are doing everything we can and have had some success in being creative in that regard.

As Europe and the developing world streaked ahead, the gulf in this country between London and the north widened under Labour. Only one of the eight largest cities outside London has an income per head that is above the country’s national average, which is in marked contrast to the norm on the continent of Europe. Seven out of the eight biggest German cities outside Berlin, and six out of the eight biggest cities in Italy, have an income per head that is above the national average. In France, that is true for half the largest cities, and for the others the figure is close to the national average. In other countries around Europe and the world, great cities outside the capital are motors of growth and drive the local economy. In this country, the legacy of 13 years of Labour is that the gulf with the north and in our cities across the country has widened and is a source of shame.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I do agree. I have the greatest respect for Councillor Janke, but six leaders in 10 years is no way to run a city as great as Bristol. The leaders of Liverpool, Leicester and Birmingham city councils have all said that they could lead their city better as an elected mayor. The mayoral referendum offers an historic choice to the people of Bristol: they have the chance to make it a turning point in the city’s history.

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

At the most recent meeting of the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister, in a response to a question that I asked, said that

“I can absolutely assure you that on the city deals…we can do those deals with individual cities whether or not they are going to have a mayor.”

Yet, in the Yorkshire Evening Post on Saturday, the Minister agreed that there were powers that the Government would be happy to give to an elected mayor, but not to a traditional council. Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that powers can be devolved to cities irrespective of whether they have an elected mayor or an elected council leader, as long as they have strong governance arrangements?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman and his Select Committee on Communities and Local Government know that I am always and everywhere keen to devolve power to local government, including to cities. What we have said to conclude our city deals is that there has to be stronger governance, and the case of Bristol demonstrates that. When there is a revolving door of leaders, it is impossible to have the necessary accountability, so there needs to be stronger governance, and an elected mayor meets that model.

National Planning Policy Framework

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Part of the problem with the Planning Inspectorate is that, in the regime to date, it has been required to interpret voluminous national planning regulations—many times in a state of inconsistency—and to apply regional spatial strategies. The conflict between those things, caused by successive Governments and, in particular, by the previous Government’s imposition of regional strategies, often leads in the planning system to a real tension and often antagonism, which is a disaster for the future prosperity of our country.

By putting power into the hands of local people so they see that decisions are going to be taken locally and respected locally, part of the purpose of our reforms is to move away from the situation in which decisions taken locally are overturned by the Planning Inspectorate. I have made that very clear to the inspectorate. I went to speak to the inspectorate the morning after we published the NPPF, and I made it very clear that the framework is a localist document which it is to respect.

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

rose—

[Greg Clark]

I shall give way to the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee and then make some progress.

[Mr Betts]

The document that the Government have now produced is clearly an awful lot better than the draft, and the Minister has complimented the Committee on the report that we produced, but in the end the real test is whether the new guidance is better than the old guidance—presumably whether, as a result of the changes, we get more houses built, more green energy projects approved and more development in general. But, if the sum total of all local decisions to which the Minister has referred does not account for the amount of growth that the Government want to see delivered in the economy as a whole, what will be the Government’s answer to that?

[Greg Clark]

We do expect to see more homes delivered, and one feature of the previous system was that, despite having national and regional targets, it bore no relation to what was being built on the ground. Our contention, which has been established through the consultation, is that if we work with the grain of people, if people have the types of homes that they want to see in their environment, and if we raise design standards so that people feel that they are a positive contribution to the built environment, we are likely to avoid the contention that has thwarted the delivery of homes. Such delivery is crucial to all our constituents: we cannot go on with a situation in which we fail to provide homes and employment spaces for them.

The outcome of the consultation has proved satisfactory to many commentators. Almost everyone who commented did so favourably, and they might give the hon. Gentleman some confidence in the idea that the people who gave evidence to his inquiry feel positive about the results.

It is fair to say that the outcome is going to be good for the economy. The CBI said that it

“gets the balance right between supporting jobs and growth, and serving the interests of the environment and society.”

The Institute of Directors said:

“It is great to see hundreds of…unnecessary rules being cut out of the planning system... Britain needs to get building again and these reforms allow that to happen”.

That addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point directly.

The NPPF is good for anyone who needs a home. The National Housing Federation, which, as Members know, represents social housing providers, said:

“The NPPF will give England the simpler, speedier and more positive planning system it needs.”

The Home Builders Federation said:

“The new system strikes a sensible balance between economic growth, social need and environmental considerations.”

It also stated that it is

“a sound basis for a more pro-growth planning system”.

The NPPF is good for the countryside and rural prosperity. The Country Land and Business Association said:

“The section on supporting a prosperous rural economy is excellent, laying the foundations for the growth of all types of business in rural areas.”

The framework is good for town centres. The British Retail Consortium said:

“The NPPF should do a lot to boost the country’s high streets and encourage vibrant town centres.”

It goes on:

“These practical measures…should help bring a boost to local economies.”

National Planning Policy Framework

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

We encourage neighbourhood plans to set out, at a more local level than the council’s plan, what should be the look and feel of towns. Bury St Edmunds is a town with a great deal of civic pride and would benefit from that. Neighbourhood plans have to be consistent with the broad approach of the local plan, but it is right that specific local details, which in towns such as my hon. Friend’s may relate to architectural design and historical consistency, should be expressed in a neighbourhood plan. They would then become part of the formal plan and determine planning applications.

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

I thank the Minister personally for the way in which he has dealt with the Communities and Local Government Committee and for what seems to be a generally favourable response to our report, although we are still to see the detail. I have two specific issues to raise. Will he confirm whether the proposal that the

“default answer to development proposals is ‘yes’”

is in the final document? If the “significantly and demonstrably” test remains in the document and an application for development meets that test but fails the sustainable development test, which test has priority?

[Greg Clark]

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work of his Select Committee. No development can take place that is unsustainable. That is the commitment that we give on that point. I have forgotten the other question.

[Mr Betts]

The default answer.

[Greg Clark]

The default answer was a variation of a presumption that everyone agreed was not terribly helpful, and we have deleted it from the document.

Localism Bill

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

We on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government received much evidence on the important issue of transitional arrangements. Does the Minister accept that the purpose of transitional arrangements is to enable local authorities to adjust to the new planning regime that will eventually be implemented, and to give them time to do so properly? There will be detailed, thorough negotiations with the Local Government Association in trying to reach an agreement about what a proper length of time for that transitional arrangement should be.

[Greg Clark]

I concur with that.

Overall, the amendments improve the Bill. I am grateful to their lordships for the time they spent scrutinising and approving them, and to all Members of this House and the other place who participated in initiating the amendments we have back with us today.

National Planning Policy Framework

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Thursday 20th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I want to make some progress, as I want Members to able to contribute to the debate. Let me deal with a couple of important issues that have been raised about the definition of sustainability.

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

rose—

[Greg Clark]

I will give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.

[Mr Betts]

Let me ask the Minister about the issue of 20%, as it is important to the context of building on land where that building will have the least environmental damage. If there is an extra 20%, will local authorities be able to prioritise which sites should be developed first within the 120% requirement? If not, it will be open to developers to cherry pick which sites they build on and it will be the land associated with the least environmental damage that will be left behind, as they will be the hardest sites to build on, while the greenfield sites will be built on first.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point; it is exactly the intention that councils should be able to prioritise and to bring forward the lowest environmentally valuable sites first. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The Localism Bill, through neighbourhood planning, provides precisely such a basis to protect and, indeed, promote the future of district high streets, and we have already funded a number of areas, especially on high streets, in order to demonstrate their ability to capture the importance of regional high streets as well as of city centres.

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

One of the most successful policies of the previous Conservative Government was their change to the planning guidance in the mid-’90s to ensure that priority was given to retail development in district or city centres or adjacent to them. Will the Minister now give an assurance that his proposed changes to the planning system will not water that down in any way and lead to an increase in stand-alone retail developments at the expense of our city and town centres?

[Greg Clark]

Yes.

Localism Bill

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

On the abolition of everything that is regional, which is clearly Government policy and has been for some time, the Minister has just indicated that the duty to co-operate was the central plank that would replace on some sort of strategic basis the regional dimension. With hindsight, does he think the Government gave enough attention and thought to how the duty to co-operate should be formulated and how it should work in practice? There seems to have been an awful lot of criticism from everybody with an interest in these matters about the Government’s position in the Bill.

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I know that as Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, he has taken a great interest in these matters. I have always been clear that the Bill represents a major change and it behoves any Minister from whatever party to listen to representations and to seek to improve what is a different way of solving a classic problem—planning issues that have a larger than local dimension to them. The previous Government attempted a resolution through regional arrangements. We formed a view, for better or for worse. Some of us on the Government Benches thought that those arrangements should not have been entered into in the first place. Those on the Opposition Benches would reflect, I think, that the arrangements have had their day and should be replaced with a means of addressing larger than local issues that is robust and captures the need for strategic planning. I will go straight to the amendments that relate to that—Government amendments 144 to 158—and say something about the Opposition’s amendments as I do so.

We accepted that there was an opportunity to strengthen the duty to co-operate that was set out in the Bill as originally drafted. Indeed, I perhaps agree that a minimalist view was taken of that duty. We have replaced it with something that enjoys support from a wide range of groups, having reached a form that they endorse as a useful resolution to some of these matters. I pay tribute to the effort and work that many groups outside the House have put into strengthening the duty to co-operate. It would be churlish not to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, who approached these matters in a similar vein; the amendments tabled by the Opposition in Committee provided a basis on which to discuss these matters and to make progress.

The duty to co-operate will be significantly strengthened by the amendments that we, as promised, have brought forward. They are modelled closely on what we said was appropriate in Committee and what the Royal Town Planning Institute has proposed. As the professional planning body, it was the organisation that worked most closely on this, but a wide range of other outside bodies were involved, including the Wildlife and Countryside Link coalition, which includes the WWF, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Town and Country Planning Association. In particular, we have taken up their suggestions, which were echoed in some of the amendments tabled by the Opposition in Committee, to make clearer the application to cross-boundary issues and to the marine planning system, which needs to be addressed. We have also taken input from the Planning Officers Society, whose members will be charged with meeting the duty to co-operate. As a result of its suggestion, our amendment proposes to put a reference to county councils on to the face of the Bill. That deals with one of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments that he will no doubt talk to shortly.

The combined effect has been to create a much stronger duty to co-operate that covers all authorities and a proposed list of prescribed bodies that themselves would be subject to that duty, because planning matters clearly concern not only local authorities, but other public bodies. I know from speaking with councils up and down the country that one of the frustrations is that they sometimes feel that they have not had the full and enthusiastic co-operation of other public bodies in producing plans that are clearly relevant to them.

I have placed in the Library of the House our draft list of bodies to be included in addition to local authorities. They include the Environment Agency, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, Natural England, the Mayor of London, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Homes and Communities Agency, primary care trusts, the Marine Management Organisation, the Office of Rail Regulation, the Highways Agency, Transport for London, integrated transport authorities and highways authorities. I think that it is absolutely right that those public bodies should be required to give every co-operation to local authorities in producing strategic plans that are larger than local plans for their area.

We also propose in these amendments an enabling power that will require all bodies that are subject to the duty to co-operate to have regard to the activities of other bodies when preparing plans that may not have a public character. Foremost among these are local enterprise partnerships. We intend to identify local enterprise partnerships as bodies that the prescribed bodies with the duty to co-operate must take into account and with which they will need to co-operate fully.

The duty to co-operate applies to the preparation of all development plan documents and, in particular, it requires engagement to maximise effectiveness. This cannot be a minimal engagement that simply responds to a questionnaire, which it was feared the original formulation might lead to. There must be active engagement to maximise the effectiveness of all relevant development plan documents. It applies to all strategic issues, which will be interpreted as issues that cross at least two local authority planning areas. It refers to sustainable development, because we know that the environment, in particular, does not stop at local authority boundaries and continues way beyond them, so it is absolutely right that there should be a requirement to co-operate on that. Infrastructure requirements typically go beyond local authority boundaries as well. It requires consideration to be given to the preparation of joint plans and development documents. In particular, I hope and expect that local enterprise partnerships will use their planning powers to pool some of their policies relating to the development of the economy so that they will have attractive, appealing and clear pro-growth policies, especially in areas where there is a need to attract new employers.

The crucial test of the duty to co-operate is the soundness of the plan. If the inspector finds that the duty has not been complied with, the plan will be unsound and cannot be adopted. Therefore, there is an absolute safeguard that this is not just a voluntary activity, but that it is absolutely at the heart of plan making, and rightly so, because the strategic level is very important to emphasise.

The amendment, which is the product of extensive consultation with the professional bodies and some of the other representative bodies, anticipates and deals with many of the amendments that Opposition Front Benchers might be minded to move. If I have time at the end of our considerations on this group, I will respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington. In particular, amendment 293 deals with the inclusion of county councils, and that is covered by our amendments. He will have heard me mention integrated transport authorities and the marine planning organisations in the list of prescribed organisations that I intend to publish. Sustainable development is very clearly marked there and is explicitly referenced, as are local transport plans and marine plans.

On this new clause, I can do no better than quote the briefing on that which the Royal Town Planning Institute made available to Members:

“The RTPI has worked closely with the Government on strengthening the arrangements for planning at the larger than local level and believes that the amended Clause 90 should be supported.”

It states that the Government are

“to be congratulated for listening on this issue.”

I hope that we have been able to discharge the commitments that I made in Committee to establish a replacement for the regional arrangements that is rather more robust than the original version.

Let me turn to some of the other new clauses and amendments tabled by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, has asked that at this stage we consider the specific question of whether a definition of sustainable development should be included in the Bill. New clause 2 has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and her colleagues, and those on the Opposition Front Bench have tabled some amendments relating to this matter. I will give an indication of the approach I would like to take on this, because it is an area that, as many Members know, is close to by heart. I completely agree that the purpose of planning is to promote sustainable development and that all plans and decisions should reflect that.

New clause 2 captures where we should be, and I certainly undertake to give my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole most of what she seeks. As was always intended, we will bring out a draft national planning policy framework in July, which will have sustainable development at its heart. It will set out what we mean by sustainable development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I have given clear assurances at the Dispatch Box that this is not what the RTPI perhaps suspected or what the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich clearly suspected: that this was some grand plan to—as he put it—buy and sell planning permission. That is not the case. There is no change in the dispensation.

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Greg Clark]

I give way to the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Mr Betts]

I want to get down to practicalities. Given that these matters are now material considerations, is it not the case that when an application comes before a local planning authority, the officer of that authority will have a responsibility to explain in their recommendations precisely what financial considerations there are and how much will be gained by the authority and the community from granting the application? That is completely different from any present requirement on any planning officer to explain any financial matters before the planning committee makes a decision on an application.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the Minister replies, I want to say that this is a very important point, and I am allowing the interventions to run longer than normal because of its complexity. Can we bear it in mind, however, that we still have a lot of business to get through?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Clark and Clive Betts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am pleased to confirm to my hon. Friend that we have indeed done that. It is worth pointing out that because of that great panoply of regulation and imposition, only 18% of authorities had actually adopted a regional strategy, years after they were first required.

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

I do not know whether the Minister is aware of or concerned about the damage that his changes to planning policies are already causing, but has he had the chance to read a well researched article in the Financial Times at the weekend, which showed that 7,500 houses in various schemes have already been cancelled as a result of those changes? Is it not the case that the Government’s policies are already proving damaging to the house building industry and bad for everyone in desperate need of a home?

[Greg Clark]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Communities and Local Government Committee, but I do not know where he has been for the past few years. He should know that the number of house completions has been at an historic low—the lowest since the second world war. Our intention is to increase house building by removing the imposition that sets people against development. It is a disastrous situation when people are against developments. By allowing people to create communities in the way that they want and to share in the economic benefits of that, we can take the poison out of the planning system.