Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Friday 20th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I agree that that is a particular feature of the housing market in London. The Government could do two things: the first is to say that homes in this country cannot be advertised for sale in other parts of the world before they are advertised in the United Kingdom, so that people in this country have an equal chance to buy them; and the second is to give local authorities greater power to disincentivise those who leave their homes empty, or who put in a stick of furniture and claim that they are occupied.

[Mr Pickles]

As far as I understand it, that is a new policy. Quite a lot of estate agents’ businesses are on the web these days, so how would that policy be possible? If adverts are on the web locally, they are on the web internationally. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how it will operate?

[Hilary Benn]

There is indeed the web, but the right hon. Gentleman will be well aware, having studied the market, that some companies make a special effort to market properties elsewhere and do not make a similar effort to market them in this country. He surely does not agree with that. Everyone in Britain should have the same right and opportunity, and companies should not make a deliberate effort to try to sell to people from other countries before those in London have a chance to access such properties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Pickles]

Because we count them.

[Hilary Benn]

That really takes the biscuit—trying to allege that somehow the Government are counting properly. The fact is that before the last election, the Prime Minister said that it is

“a disgrace that in the fifth biggest economy in the world…we have people homeless, people sleeping on the streets”.

I agree with him. It is a disgrace and people should hold him to account for his shocking record.

We shall deal with the housing crisis only if we have a comprehensive plan. We have one—the most comprehensive in a generation—in the form of the Lyons review, which we will implement from day one of a Labour Government. We will make housing a national priority for capital investment. We will work with housing associations and councils to make it easier to build council houses, building on the changes we made to the housing revenue account.

We need more firms to be building. Thirty to 40 years ago, two thirds of the homes in this country were built by small and medium-sized builders; that proportion is now less than a third. Ask small builders what the problem is and they say, “I can’t get access to land and I can’t get access to finance.” We will introduce a help to build scheme, which will allow small and medium-sized builders to get lower-cost bank lending, supported by Treasury guarantees. We will encourage local authorities and others to make more innovative use of public sector land, investing in it as equity instead of selling it to the highest bidder, because that will also help us to deliver more affordable homes.

We will use Treasury guarantees and financial incentives to support the building of garden cities, and we will ensure that every council has a local plan. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), said that it is not necessary for every council to have a plan, but I think it is the responsibility of every local authority in England to have a local plan. Why would someone seek to be elected to an authority, or to be its leader, if they were not going to draw up a plan for the future of their community that included how they will meet the housing needs of the people who elected them?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Before the last election, the then Leader of the Opposition said:

“Any Cabinet minister...who comes to me and says ‘here are my plans and they involve front line reductions’ will be sent back to their department to go away and think again.”

Yet we now know that the social care front line has been cut, including the simple act of giving a hot meal to elderly people living at home alone, with 220,000 fewer elderly people receiving meals on wheels compared with 2010, when that promise was made. I have a very simple question for the Secretary of State: why is that?

[Mr Pickles]

The amount spent by councils in cash terms is roughly the same as it was in 2010-11 so far as adult social care is concerned. The net revenue on adult social care was £14.6 billion—about 30% of councils’ budgets. Individual councils have made various decisions and it is up to those councils to defend them. We have tried to ensure, with the better care fund, better co-ordination between medical care and social care, including domiciliary care.

[Hilary Benn]

If I may say so, that was an overly firm denial of the Secretary of State’s responsibility for what has gone on. Let me ask him about another promise to the elderly that was made in 2010—by him. In December that year, the right hon. Gentleman assured the House that the local government settlement was

“providing councils with sufficient resources to protect people’s access to care”.—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 680.]

Yet the National Audit Office says that spending on adult social care is being cut, most of all in the areas of greatest need, which have also seen the biggest reductions in Government funding. Is it not the truth that the Secretary of State has also broken his promise to the elderly people of England and that it has happened because in the past five years he has taken decisions about funding that have been unfair to councils and because, as many councils of all parties think, he has failed to stand up for local government?

[Mr Pickles]

Given that the right hon. Gentleman’s party is promising £52 billion-worth of cuts to local authorities, I do not see that he has a leg to stand on. I have to say to him that this coalition has worked hard to protect the elderly and to improve the better care programme. My desk is covered with requests from Labour councils demanding that we cease the exemption for elderly people on council tax relief and the like. Frankly, for the right hon. Gentleman to pose as a friend of the elderly is absolutely ludicrous.

Troubled Families Programme

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for his personal commitment to providing support to local authorities up and down the country that are working with the most excluded families through the troubled families programme?

It is not often that we in this House pay tribute to public servants, and we do not do it as much as we should, so I would like to thank Louise Casey for the leadership she has shown and all the staff working in all the projects for their extraordinary dedication, patience and commitment. Their skill in, above all, building trust with the families they work with is absolutely fundamental if together they are to succeed.

We on the Opposition Benches support this important work. As the Secretary of State has generously acknowledged, the previous Labour Government started the family intervention project, and a future Labour Government would want to see this work continue and go from strength to strength.

As the Secretary of State will know, a number of local authorities and Labour pushed for the original criteria to be broadened to enable local authorities to provide support to those families most in need and to ensure that there was proper long-term follow-up to see whether families could maintain the progress that had been made. I welcome the fact that the Government listened to those representations and made the necessary changes.

It is clear that we need to provide hands-on support to families with multiple complex needs, in order to help them to break cycles of disadvantage. It is also clear that we need to move away from trying to contain problems, at great expense, towards trying to prevent them in the first place. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the concentration in the most deprived communities of families taking part in the troubled families programme? I ask that because we know that, under this Government, households living in areas that rank in the 10 most deprived communities have seen their local authority spending power reduced by 16 times as much as those in the 10 least deprived communities.

Demands on children’s services are increasing and the figures show that local authorities are doing their best to protect them. However, the National Audit Office has found that, between 2010-11 and 2014-15, budgeted spending on children’s social care actually fell by 4.3% on average in authorities with the highest cuts in Government funding, compared with real-terms increases of 14.8% in authorities with the lowest cuts. How is that going to help?

Last August, it was announced that the troubled families programme would be expanded to work with 400,000 more families from 2015 to 2020, with funding of £200 million for 2015-16, but the Secretary of State has just said that he has secured cross-Government support and an additional £200 million for its expansion from 2015 to 2020. Will he confirm whether that £200 million is for 2015-16 or for the whole period from 2015 to 2020?

The Secretary of State referred to the 10,000 adults who have moved into sustained work, which is a great achievement, but it still leaves more than 100,000 families where that has not happened. Would it not help those families if we were to guarantee a job, as Labour is proposing, to every adult who has been out of work for more than two years and every young person who has been out of work for more than a year?

The Secretary of State rightly talked about the problems that a number of these families have in paying bills. How many troubled families are being hit by the profoundly unfair bedroom tax? Surely, to help them, that tax should be scrapped, as we have committed to do? Why are the Government so intent on penalising people on the lowest incomes, and how many of those families currently rely on food banks to help feed their children?

Over this Parliament, the Secretary of State has spoken regularly about the number of families who have been turned around. However, within the original programme, a family could be so classified if they reduced the level of crime committed by just a third. Will he confirm whether such families are counted in the total he gave today?

In 2011, the Prime Minister said that troubled families were costing the state an estimated £9 billion a year. However, in his statement today, the Secretary of State said that if these savings were representative of all 105,000 families so far, it would generate a total of £1.2 billion in gross fiscal benefits. Can he square those two figures and confirm whether these savings are in fact being achieved? As he will be only too aware, demonstrating savings will be really important for securing future funding for the programme from other parts of Whitehall.

We know that intensive support really can help families transform their lives. Raising children can be challenging and we can all do with help and advice at times. We support the programme precisely because the local authorities that are implementing it on the ground are convinced that it makes a difference. However, the Government also have a responsibility to help all families, whether in difficulty or not, in other ways. Insecurity, zero-hours contracts, a lack of affordable housing and high rents are real concerns for them. If we are really to help all Britain’s families, we need a Government who will do something about those things as well.

[Mr Pickles]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. In particular, I would like to endorse his views on Louise Casey. It has been a privilege over the past five years to get to know a number of senior civil servants, but none have I enjoyed working with more than Louise, who is definitely one of a kind. She has been an absolute joy to work with. I also recognise that none of this could have been achieved without all-party support.

The right hon. Gentleman made a number of points on how we can demonstrate success and square the £1.2 billion with the £9 billion. He knows as well as anybody that this is notoriously difficult territory, because Governments of all types are absolutely terrible at measuring outcomes. We have made a start—he might have had an opportunity to look at the research—by looking at seven exemplar authorities and extrapolating the findings to produce some financial analysis. To answer his questions, I think that it is only fair to have that audited independently. As he will know, we are due to have a very comprehensive audit of the programme. I am confident that the exemplar authorities indicate what has been achieved. I think that I have been conservative—no pun intended—in estimating what can be achieved.

The right hon. Gentleman made a number of points about spending power. The point needs to be made that the Government are spending the most in the most deprived areas; we are spending an awful lot less on prosperous areas. I remind him, with great humility, that under the system in place before this Government came in, we were throwing money at the problem and achieving precisely nothing. By addressing some of the social ills, dealing with the problems, shoulder to shoulder with Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat councils, we have been able to achieve these benefits. It so happens that it is cheaper, but it is actually better and more caring, because we are not throwing people away, condemning them to a life on benefits.

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the way in which he has handled this difficult matter. I also add my thanks to Louise Casey and her inspection team for the work that they have done.

Last September, the Jay report exposed the sheer scale of the sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham. Today, once again, our thoughts are with the victims and the horror to which they were subjected. The report provided evidence that the council, together with other public bodies, had failed in its duty to protect Rotherham’s children. It was therefore right for the Secretary of State to establish the inquiry that has reported today.

Louise Casey’s report is, frankly, damning. It reveals very serious institutional failings, continuing denial of the problem, a damaging culture of sexism, bullying and discomfort about race, a failure to address past weaknesses, a greater interest in protecting the council’s reputation than, apparently, in protecting children, a lack of scrutiny and failure to challenge other agencies, and ineffective leadership. If we are to move forward, everyone involved must accept the truth. It is clear that the council has not yet done so, and, as a result, does not currently have the capacity to heal itself. I agree with the Secretary of State that a fresh start is needed, and I therefore welcome the statement that has been issued by Rotherham council’s cabinet in the last few minutes. It reads as follows:

“As a cabinet…we must take responsibility. We therefore announce our intention to resign our positions as soon as transitional arrangements can be put in place.”

In the light of that, I support the course of action that the Secretary of State has just announced, and, in particular, the sending in of commissioners to take over the functions of the cabinet. As the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, it is a serious step to take, but the circumstances clearly warrant it, and I welcome the assurance he has given that his aim is to return responsibility to local democratic control when it is right to do so.

I have a number of questions to ask. When does the Secretary of State expect to be in a position to announce the names of the five commissioners, especially given the announcement that has just been made by Rotherham council about the current cabinet? What background and experience will he be looking for in appointing them? Does he intend to consult anyone when making the appointments? What progress reports will he and the House receive on the work that the commissioners undertake? What discussions has he had with the Education Secretary about Ofsted and its role in inspecting Rotherham, given the concerns expressed by the Communities and Local Government Committee?

When he commissioned the report, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he had asked Louise Casey—in addition to her inspection of the council—to explore the links between Rotherham, the police and the justice system. Can he update the House on that part of her work, and when can we expect to see her findings, given that there will undoubtedly be lessons on which all local authorities should act? Sadly, as we know, the problems of child sexual exploitation are not confined to Rotherham.

The people of Rotherham—and all of us—remain angry, above all, with the perpetrators of the shocking abuse that took place over decades, and we are united in our determination both to see justice done and to act to prevent this from ever happening again. In doing so, we must also remain united in the face of those who will seek to use what has happened in Rotherham to divide the community.

Local authorities have great responsibilities, which they have a duty to exercise on behalf of the people they represent. When it comes to our children, there is no greater responsibility than to make sure that they are safe and protected. It is unforgivable that this did not happen here, but our joint task now is to work with the commissioners, the council, other public bodies and the people of Rotherham to put things right.

[Mr Pickles]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone and the substance of his response. He is bang on the money. By their wilful blindness to address this issue and by their reluctance to tackle issues relating to people of Pakistani heritage, they just made it worse. The problems we are going to face over the next few weeks, with those who will seek to exploit this, were made worse. We want to make it absolutely clear that the House is determined to deal with the question of child sexual exploitation without fear or favour. I very much welcome that.

On looking for commissioners, I consulted the right hon. Gentleman when we faced another situation and I shall be consulting him on this. Of course, we need to make it clear in that consultation that I am not in any way prejudicing the decision on whether to take the necessary action. That has to be clear. The cabinet has now resigned, which I think was the sensible thing to do. I do not think we can take that as the formal response, but I look forward to hearing what Rotherham has to say.

With regard to Ofsted, Louise Casey spoke to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, and arrangements have been made to talk further about the points raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). The right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to look at the report and will know that there are certain references to and worries with regard to the police force. Louise Casey has also spoken to the Home Secretary and we hope to make progress, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there are certain matters it would not be seemly to talk about on the Floor of the House.

I am keen to get democratic control back to Rotherham. It is my intention to try to roll those services back. Initially, I looked at taking limited ones, but having looked through the whole process it was clear that it just simply was not possible. I needed to take the whole lot and then roll them back as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.

I have been involved with local government for the best part of 40 years. This is heartbreaking. This is terrible. I used to lead a large council. I can see the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on the Opposition Benches—he used to lead a very large council. I used to be the chairman of a social services committee. I just cannot understand how people with responsibility, both officers and members, could ever, ever have allowed this to happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

It is not a general problem, though we have come across it. I know that my right hon. Friend is very disturbed by it. The best way to avoid freedom of information requests is to be open, straightforward and transparent, and sometimes some authorities are not. But there can be no excuse for persecuting a public official. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 lays down guidance with regard to vexatious claims. I understand that my right hon. Friend intends to write to me and I will look at the case very carefully.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

May I start by expressing the Opposition’s concern about the situation in Sydney today? Our thoughts are with all the people who appear to have been taken hostage and with their families.

We are all aware of the threat posed by Islamism, the extremist ideology that wrongly claims to be informed by Islam and which attempts to recruit and radicalise our citizens. Can the right hon. Gentleman update the House on what his Department is doing with faith groups to help identify and deal with the sources of extremism and radicalisation in our communities?

[Mr Pickles]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his statement about events in Sydney. Our primary thoughts must be with the hostages, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be as heartened as I am by the response to the worries expressed by Muslims in Australia about travelling on public transport, and the “I’ll ride with you” campaign, whereby Australian citizens are standing by the Muslim community and ensuring that Muslims feel they are good Australians.

We have spent about £45 million on integration projects since 2010 and an extra £11 million to support 29 projects this year, but I expect the right hon. Gentleman is more concerned about work with specific groups. Indeed, we have given priority to working with groups in east London, east Birmingham and along the M62 corridor. We work closely with them and with various other groups in the spirit of “not in their name”, to show that we recognise the full strength of the Islamic community’s love of peace.

[Hilary Benn]

Interfaith dialogue of the type that the Secretary of State describes with mainstream religious groups is important. The problem is that radical Islamists are not part of it, and Muslim communities are just as keen as others to know what he is doing to help them identify, isolate and deal with the conditions in which such an ideology develops. Does he agree that it is now time for his Department to focus its efforts on helping families to stop the radicalisation of their children and on promoting greater mutual understanding so as to undermine the corrosive effects of Islamism, which so damages our values and our democracy?

[Mr Pickles]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I intend to put out a written parliamentary statement that lays out the full breadth of what we have been doing to deal with this issue. The empowerment of women and of families in knowing what is going on on the web is a recognition of how things have changed. Those who expect this to come out of the mosque are living in a past world. This battle is fought on the internet and by modern methods of communication. Of course, as always, I will keep the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends completely informed about what we do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I join the Secretary of State in condemning anti-Semitic abuse. I very much welcome the action he has taken today.

Last year, the Secretary of State decided to extend permitted development rights so that offices could be converted to residential use without requiring planning permission. What assessment has he made of the impact of his change on the availability of office space, in particular for small and start-up businesses that are so important to our economy?

[Mr Pickles]

First, may I express great sadness that the right hon. Gentleman was not on his feet yesterday to defend his leader? For him to be missing seems to me to be deeply shameful. [Interruption.] Well I’m here to defend Ed.

We did this because there was quite a lot of surplus office accommodation. It was a necessary thing to do and I think it has improved a number of town centres by getting people new homes. In terms of offering new and exciting ways for people to set up new businesses, the situation remains open.

[Hilary Benn]

It seems extraordinary that the Secretary of State has clearly made no effort at all to find out the impact of his decision, despite reports of small businesses being affected. As he will know, the Mayor of London is very unhappy about what he has done. The Business Secretary thinks it is a really bad idea, saying that

“in south-west London large swathes of commercial property are in the process of disappearing…there is nowhere for small firms to operate.”

A recent Local Government Association survey found in one case that 100 charities and small businesses had been given four to six weeks’ notice to quit. The right hon. Gentleman used to be a localist. He said earlier that he has given more power to local communities to take decisions on planning, so why did he decide that his view on this matter would prevail over the views of local people?

[Mr Pickles]

I note that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the opportunity to defend the Leader of the Opposition, which again I am very shocked at. He should do his homework: local schemes exist and article 4 exists. It is possible to decide where they go and where they do not. People need housing, and where Labour failed to deliver houses, we have succeeded.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to have advance sight of his statement. Given that he had received serious allegations about Tower Hamlets earlier this year, and given the material that had been submitted to the Department, it was clearly right for him to exercise the powers granted to him under the Local Government Act 1999 to appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers to conduct an inspection of the authority’s compliance with its best-value duty. As I said at the time, that audit had to be full, open and transparent if it was to command public confidence. The publication of PwC’s report today has fulfilled the requirements for openness and transparency, and it has certainly done a comprehensive job, which may well explain why the process has taken slightly longer than I think both sides had originally hoped.

The findings of the report are indeed very troubling. There was a lack of transparency in regard to the giving of grants, the governance of grant awards was not effective, and grants were given to organisations that had been ruled ineligible or did not meet the required evaluation score. As for property transactions, in three of the four cases that were investigated—those of Poplar town hall, Sutton street depot and Mellish street—the inspection concluded that

“the Authority failed to comply with its best value duty.”

In the case of Poplar town hall,

“The Authority accepted a late bid from the winning bidder after other bids had been opened, creating a risk of bid manipulation”,

and the authority did not, in fact, select the highest bidder.

In relation to publicity and the use of media advisers, the report refers to a finding by Ofcom that a broadcast constituted political advertising, and states that

“the clear implication is that Authority monies were spent inappropriately on what amounted to political advertising for the benefit of the Mayor…This in itself constitutes a failure to comply with the best value duty in this instance."

The overall conclusion of the inspection is that the current governance arrangements do not appear to be capable of preventing, or responding appropriately to, the failures identified. The fact that the council is still without permanent appointments to its three most important statutory officer posts should also be a matter of great concern to the House. In the light of what has been found, we support the course of action announced by the Secretary of State, although we must recognise that it is a very serious step to take. It is important for the considerable powers with which the Secretary of State has been entrusted to be used not lightly or because of a political disagreement with decisions made by a local authority, but because that local authority has failed in its statutory duties.

When does the Secretary of State propose to announce the names of the three commissioners, and what background and experience will he be looking for in appointing them? Does he intend to consult anyone in making the appointments? Will the commissioners be paid, and, if so, who will bear the cost? The Secretary of State said that he envisaged that the commissioners would be in place until March 2017. Will the length of their term of office depend on the progress that they and the council make, together with the mayor, in dealing with the problems that have been identified? What progress reports will the Secretary of State, and the House, receive? What relationship will the commissioners have with the elected councillors in Tower Hamlets, and what role does he envisage for wider local government in the provision of support for Tower Hamlets, as happened in the case of Doncaster?

At the time of the Secretary of State’s original decision to send in the auditors, he told the House that a file had also been passed to the Metropolitan police for their consideration. The police subsequently announced that they had found

“no credible evidence of criminality”.

Does the Secretary of State believe that the PwC report contains any further information that might warrant its being referred to the police, or is that aspect of the allegations now closed?

In respect of publicity, the inspection report says that a

“significant proportion of the budget is allocated to the”

—weekly—

“publication of ‘East End Life’”,

which seems to be little more than a vehicle for promotion of the mayor. The Secretary of State knows of my concern about that particular publication. Will he tell us when he intends to make a final decision about “East End Life”?

There are, of course, other legal processes under way relating to Tower Hamlets, and it is right for us not to discuss them here. I will say, however, that given the concerns that have been expressed about the conduct of elections, we also support the Secretary of State’s decision to ask the commissioners to take responsibility for the appointment of an electoral registration officer and a returning officer for future elections.

Local authorities have important powers and duties, which they exercise on behalf of the people whom they represent. They should be free to do that independently, in the way that they see fit. However, with those powers come responsibilities, and, in particular, the responsibility to ensure that all decisions are made on an open, fair and transparent basis. The people of Tower Hamlets are proud to live alongside each other in a community that reflects the face of modern Britain, which is why there can be no place for the politics of division in Tower Hamlets or elsewhere, whatever its motivation. It is the job of every locally elected representative to care for the interests of all his or her constituents.

It seems clear from the report with which we have been presented today that those standards have not been upheld in a number of instances in the case of Tower Hamlets and its mayor. Just as, in April, Tower Hamlets welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate that council processes had been run appropriately—which, as we have learnt today, was not the case—it should now accept the findings of this report, and work with the commissioners to ensure that what has gone wrong is put right.

[Mr Pickles]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s assessment. In particular, I agree with his view that in a diverse and vibrant community, a community to be proud of, it is the job and the responsibility of councillors and the mayor to ensure that no one feels out of place and everyone feels welcome.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, of which I hope I have made a reasonable note. He asked me for the names of the commissioners. I hope that he will forgive me: I have not yet made a decision. He asked whether I would want to consult and discuss matters once I had made a decision; well, of course I will. He asked about pay. The council will pay expenses and a reasonable fee. He asked about progress reports. As I said in my statement, we will expect such reports every six months, and, as in the case of Doncaster, we will of course share that information with the House.

I noted the right hon. Gentleman’s special pleading in respect of “East End Life”, which, perhaps, represents an exception to his usual views. We will listen to representations and make an announcement in due course, but that will be entirely separate from the process that I have described.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to criminal activities. I recall what the police said about the subject. I also recall their subsequent statement that they were continuing to look at the issues. I have no idea whether the report contains allegations of criminality, although we will of course send a copy to the police for their information. However, I have here a statement from the mayor of Tower Hamlets which relates directly to the right hon. Gentleman’s point. He said that I had announced that I was “concerned about potential fraud” and that

“the Evening Standard ran these claims on its front page” .

He added:

“These allegations have been rejected by PwC.

The report highlights flaws in processes. These are regrettable. We will learn from this report and strengthen our procedures accordingly.”

I am afraid to say that it seems to me that the mayor’s test is, “If you’re not actually caught with your fingers in the till, you’re innocent.” There are serious flaws in what has occurred. If I was the mayor of Tower Hamlets, I would be hanging my head in shame, because what he has allowed to occur in Tower Hamlets is shameful—not that I have made a final decision.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

The short answer is yes. I was struck by what Members said, and this country clearly needs a robust and sustainable housing policy with regard to energy. We need a degree of reality and reasonableness in this approach. We have made a number of ministerial statements on the matter. It is excellent to see these solar panels on the roofs of houses, but we do not want them taking away valuable agricultural land. I shall look carefully at what my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have said, and we will work with fellow ministries and produce a statement soon.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I join the Secretary of State and you, Mr Speaker, in expressing our profound sadness at the death of our good friend and colleague Jim Dobbin. Jim served his constituents and this House with distinction. He was a passionate defender of the national health service, for which he worked for many years, and a campaigner against global poverty. His integrity and his decency shone through in everything he did. All our thoughts are with his wife Pat and their children in their great loss.

I also join the Secretary of State in passing on our congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Over the summer, the nation has come fully to realise the scale of the grooming and recruitment of young British Muslims to go and commit atrocities in the name of the so-called Islamic State. Every single one of us has responsibility to tackle the causes of this radicalisation, and the Secretary of State particularly so. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore tell us what specific steps he and his Department have taken to counter this threat?

[Mr Pickles]

The right hon. Gentleman will readily understand that when we came to office, the Prevent strategy was moved to the Home Office. We have concentrated on the matters that bring people together and encourage communities not to be isolated. We have spent the best part of £45 million on that endeavour, on things ranging from “English First”, which ensures English is taught in perhaps unusual places—trying to target young mothers, for example—to putting a lot of money, about £10 million, into the recruitment of detached youth workers to appropriate organisations. We have also funded groups that work together, whether it be in mosques, churches or synagogues. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that we all have an obligation in this regard. Speaking as someone brought up in a multicultural city, I think this issue goes far deeper than funding streams. It is an extraordinary sight to see someone born and brought up in this country participating in atrocities in the middle east. I pledge the Government, along with the Opposition, to work hard on this—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but we have many questions to get through.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reply. Given what he said, however, why does he think that last month the widely respected counter-extremism think-tank Quilliam criticised his Department’s failure to produce a proper strategy as “catastrophic”? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that much more needs to be done across government and the country to protect our young people, including confronting head-on Islamic State’s repugnant ideology, its promoters and apologists here in the United Kingdom and its utter contempt for our democracy and way of life? As he does so, he will have the full support of the Opposition.

[Mr Pickles]

I am grateful. We came to the conclusion early on not to fund some of Quilliam’s work, which might well have clouded its judgment. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support. Quilliam’s criticism does not reflect what my Department, working closely with the Home Office, is doing, but as I say, I am grateful for his support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

I am pleased to report to the House that we were so impressed by what those in Gloucestershire did that we invited them to appear before the co-ordinating committee. There were many fine examples of working with all the various agencies of the state for the betterment of residents.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Last year, the Secretary of State told the “Today” programme that he was going to stop CCTV being used around schools to prevent illegal and dangerous parking. He said:

“No, they can’t use a camera…I think it’s kind of the easy answer…to say ‘it’s all to protect the children’”.

What on earth led the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that protecting the safety of our children was a bad idea?

[Mr Pickles]

There seems to be a bit of a delay; that was some time ago. We consulted, we listened to the consultation and where it is not possible to have an enforcement officer present at the school, we have no objection at all to cameras being used. What we have done is to stop councils going out and patrolling the streets with cameras in order to make money, rather than to protect children. I think we have passed the test of protecting children; what we have to do is to ensure that we pass the test of not persecuting the motorist.

[Hilary Benn]

As usual, there was a lot of bluster there. The fact is that the Secretary of State wanted to ban the use of cameras outside schools, but was forced to change his mind. He knew it was unworkable because the response to the consultation said:

“Schools…were opposed to a camera ban.”

Schools also said that cameras had a useful deterrent effect, that where they were not used dangerous parking was reported to increase and that parking was a significant safety issue. After two U-turns in a week, when is the Secretary of State going to realise that gimmicks in search of a headline are no substitute for policy that can actually be implemented?

[Mr Pickles]

The House always enjoys the right hon. Gentleman’s Lady Bracknell impersonation. He is saying that I am guilty of consulting on this issue, listening to the consultation and implementing what it wanted, but that seems to me to be a fairly reasonable way for a democrat to behave.

Cost of Living: Energy and Housing

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Thursday 5th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State be responding to this debate?

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 7th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

The Environment Agency, with the help of the Army, now has a full set of flood defences that need attention. If my hon. Friend has a particular problem with regard to funding, I will happily meet him after questions.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On Tower Hamlets, it is clearly in the public interest to establish the facts, so anyone who has any information should bring it forward, and of course the audit must be open and transparent to command public confidence.

It is reported in The Guardian that this week the Prime Minister intends to announce a clampdown on fixed-odds betting terminals, with a range of regulatory and planning powers to curb the clustering of betting shops. What planning changes is the Secretary of State considering to protect communities from too many betting shops and too many FOBTs?

[Mr Pickles]

I am most grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support with regard to Tower Hamlets. He is absolutely right: this has to be completely in the open. At a reception relating to flooding this lunchtime, I was approached by someone who had dealings with Tower Hamlets and is indeed handing over information. It is important that we get to the bottom of this.

With regard to fixed-odds terminals, it was announced in the Budget that we would be carrying out a review of use class, and we are about to start the consultation. The right hon. Gentleman, who has considerable experience in planning, is most welcome to make a contribution to that.

[Hilary Benn]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but it sounds to me as though, once again, No. 10 has taken over responsibility for his policy. He says that there will be a consultation, but how open will it be? I ask because when we proposed that communities should be given more powers over fixed-odds betting terminals and the proliferation of betting shops, the Planning Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), said he was against that, telling the House that

“we need no more planning changes to enable councils to do what they want to do to protect their local communities.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 412.]

Does the Planning Minister still stand by that statement?

[Mr Pickles]

The Planning Minister is absolutely right. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon—may I be allowed to reply? Article 4 is pretty adequate, but we have noticed that local authorities seem reluctant to use it. Why should electors suffer because of the inactivity of their local councils? We are looking most carefully at this, and it was in the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman was there—I saw him—and he should have paid attention to what the Chancellor said.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 3rd March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that the Leeds city region will become a combined authority in April, but at present York cannot formally join because its boundary is not contiguous. On 28 October 2013, I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would respond to the city region’s proposal to deal with this. He described it as wholly sensible and said:

“I am confident we will have a resolution before Christmas.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 690.]

However, in a written answer last week the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) said that

“we are now considering consulting before the summer on a Legislative Reform Order”.—[Official Report, 24 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 120W.]

Given the clear assurance that the Secretary of State gave me, will he gently say to his hon. Friend that he should get a move on?

[Mr Pickles]

I did not specify which Christmas I meant. However, I gave the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking, and it was a proper undertaking. Various legal obstacles were put in our way, but we intend to consult, and, subject to the position being legally satisfactory, there will be a resolution. Given that I gave an undertaking from the Dispatch Box to resolve the matter, I will not lightly do otherwise.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful for that assurance. I hope that the Leeds city region will now see things speeding up.

Let me turn to the profoundly unfair way in which the Secretary of State is treating local government. He tells us—and we heard it a moment ago from the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis)—that spending power per household is the proper way in which to compare council funding. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, as a result of the plans that he has set out, within four years local spending power will be higher in Wokingham than it will be in Leeds, Sheffield or Newcastle, although they face much greater pressures? Most people would say that that is unfair and impossible to justify. Why does the Secretary of State think that areas in greater need should receive less?

[Mr Pickles]

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that it was on the urging of the Labour party that we adopted the spending power regime. He will also recall that we moved from a need element to a consequence element. Those who are prepared to have houses built and to provide additional facilities to improve their tax position will benefit. We have moved from a system of the begging bowl to a system in which consequences follow economic and entrepreneurial activity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 20th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

I am very surprised to hear that. I know my hon. Friend takes a great interest as a co-chair of the all-party group on primary care and public health. That issue goes to the very heart of whether we trust local government. A number of us have wanted the removal of ring-fencing, but using on gritting what should be used on public health is frankly ridiculous, and it brings local government into disrepute.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Last year, the Prime Minister was reported to have abandoned his support for new towns and garden cities. Last week, however, the Housing Minister said he was not aware of any report which was supposed to have been published, while the Deputy Prime Minister revealed that there is a prospectus and said that the Government should be honest about their plans to build new garden cities. Yesterday, the Secretary of State confirmed that there is a report, but that it seems to have nothing to do with his Department. Given that he is supposed to be in charge of housing and planning, why has he not asked to see a copy?

[Mr Pickles]

Of course there are reports. A report commissioned by the previous Government wanted to impose five garden cities, and when that failed, there was a report for 10 garden cities, but the truth is that Labour failed to build. We have been very straightforward about it: through local development growth, we will do our best to help those communities that want to have a garden city or volunteer for a garden city. Within my Department, there are certainly no plans to build on the floodplain or to increase London sprawl.

[Hilary Benn]

This is what the Secretary of State said yesterday. He said that

“I am told by my department that this report”—

confirming its existence—

“does not come from my department.”

He should clear it up by publishing the prospectus now.

Since the Secretary of State and I agree that identifying sites for new garden cities must be locally led, will he tell the House whether Yalding in Kent, Gerrards Cross in Buckinghamshire or any council in Oxfordshire has come forward to express interest in providing such a site? If not, will he confirm to the House that his officials are not currently looking at any of those areas as potential sites?

[Mr Pickles]

The only person who I think is looking at those as potential sites is Michael Lyons, who is working for the Labour party on these matters. Just to be absolutely clear, I cannot rule out some ambitious civil servant re-heating and re-badging an old Labour scheme to bring it to us. I want to be absolutely clear: no one is going to be forced to have a garden city against their will. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is a little confused. He seems to be mixing up a prospectus with this report, whether it exists or not, but the prospectus with regard to the local growth fund—an extra £1 billion has been put in—will of course be published in the spring.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

Having reduced my own Department’s spending by 60%, I regard 50% as a good start. The advantage of that is seen not just in the settlement but in the good running of the authority, so I commend my hon. Friend’s authority for its magnificent work.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has rightly talked about the importance of local authorities keeping down council tax in these tough times for many people—although he has imposed an increase on those on the very lowest incomes—but when it comes to business rates, which he set, he pursues a completely different policy. In the past two years, he has been quite happy to see struggling businesses hit by increases in business rates of 5.6% and 2.7%. What does the Minister say to owners of small businesses who feel that that is both damaging and unfair?

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords]

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 28th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point. If the system is changed in the future, as long as people knew where they should look, they could trawl through council websites or other publications.

On the frequency of publication, the vast majority of councils that produce magazines publish them four times a year or less. A very small number publish more frequently, but does that constitute justification for the power in clause 38? Does it actually matter if a small parish council puts out an A4 newsletter once or even twice a month? What business is it of the Secretary of State anyway? Has he not got more pressing things to do?

The second argument we have heard is that Ministers are exercised by propaganda on the rates. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), has talked about a

“corrosive abuse of taxpayers’ money.”—[Official Report, 14 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 840W.]

The Secretary of State has talked about pocket Pravdas, town hall Pravdas and shutting down the Pravda printing presses. Members will detect a bit of a theme there, so I thought I had better have a look. I spent a little time reading through council publications, copies of which I have with me.

Given what Ministers have said, I was expecting to find a hotbed of raw, red propaganda and party politics, but I have to say that I was sorely disappointed. There was not a single proclamation from local authority supreme Soviets, no diktats from executive board commissars and—this was especially disappointing—not a single article on the latest tractor production figures. There was nothing on collective farms. The nearest I got to that was an article about a community garden where “residents developed plots”. Is that the sort of dangerous, collectivist revolutionary activity—plotting in the garden—that keeps Ministers awake at night? Actually, the piece is from an excellent publication, South Kesteven Today—the local magazine of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles)—and is about a community garden in Stamford.

I continued my search for the cause of all this anxiety. I had a look at Bradford’s Community Pride. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who has responsibility for housing, has left the Chamber, but the magazine had an article on deadlines for primary school applications and an explanation of council tax. Is that a problem?

I had a look at the Epping Forest magazine, Forester, which had an article about parking charges. We know how that subject gets the Secretary of State going, but it is also a very good publication. And what has Luton done? What has Luton done?

[Mr Pickles]

Just tell us.

[Hilary Benn]

The Secretary of State obviously forgets that he criticised Luton for its publication. I have the latest edition of Luton Line. It is a very good publication. On the front page is a photograph of the former Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), holding a spade and standing next to the Labour leader of the council—now that is a coalition to reckon with. They are celebrating work starting on a new relief road.

These publications contain articles about recycling, articles on health, pleas for foster parents, adverts for MPs’ surgeries, and lists of councillors. Pocket Pravdas? What a load of nonsense.

Moving from the fanciful to the serious, the LGA has taken independent legal advice on clause 38, and Sir Merrick Cockell says that it

“confirms our fears that a government could hand power to one individual in Whitehall to restrict councils from campaigning on important issues such as HS2 or hospital closures if they so wish.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

No, I have been very generous in giving way.

The great localist is, in this Bill, asking to be given a great big blue pencil so that he can cross out things that he does not like.

[Mr Pickles]

Nonsense!

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head and says that it is nonsense, but he is undone by his own words. He has obviously forgotten what he said in the response to the consultation, in which ministers justified the new powers by saying that they would

“ensure that in future effective action can be taken should any council be considering publicity that is of a political or tendentious character.”

The only way in which that can be interpreted is that the Secretary of State is seeking to take a pre-emptive power of censorship. What did he mean by that and how on earth will it work?

Last year, the Secretary of State told the Conservative party conference that

“without constant vigilance—the cigar-chomping Commies will take over.”

What none of us realised then was that the person we needed to worry about was him. Clause 38 is wrong in principle and I cannot see how it will work in practice. We will seek to remove it in Committee.

I turn now to clause 39 and the new matters that the Secretary of State wants to include in the Bill. In responding to the debate, will the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, explain why he is reneging on the deals that his Government signed by making the provision on referendums and levying bodies retrospective?

The Secretary of State well knows that an important element of the Leeds city region deal was the establishment of a significant transport investment fund, partly funded by central Government and partly funded by the transport authority levy over 20 years. A year ago, the former cities Minister, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), said that the deal was:

“Giving cities the powers, control over resources, and funding they need to fire on all cylinders”.

Will the Secretary of State explain why, almost a year after his ministerial colleague put pen to paper to sign the deal, he is asking the House to undermine it? Will he set out his assessment of the impact of his decision, and say what effect it will have on holding back investment in transport infrastructure and local growth in the city region? This is an important point of principle, because I fear that the actions of the Secretary of State in imposing the rules retrospectively and going back on a done deal will undermine confidence in the city deal process—which I support—and harm the certainty on which sound financial planning and private investment rely.

To limit the damage of his decision, will the Secretary of State clarify for the record that at the time the city deal was signed, he had no plans, and had had no discussions, about changing the rules on levying authorities? The answer to that must be no, because if he had done so he would—of course—have been honour-bound to disclose that to the people with whom he was negotiating.

[Mr Pickles]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way so that the Secretary of State can clarify that point.

[Mr Pickles]

It is important to address this rather silly suggestion. From the published plans and what we know, the extra levy does not make a single percentage share difference. We know what the city deal is for Leeds—it is perhaps the most ambitious of the lot. Even assuming that we have the same referendum threshold as in the past, the proposal comes nowhere near to going over that threshold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

First, that is not the view held by the Leeds city region, and secondly, the House will have noticed that the Secretary of State did not answer the specific question I put to him about what he knew when he signed the deal.

The Secretary of State proposes to make other changes by widening the scope of the Bill, and there have been discussions about how we deal with the problem of the Leeds city region and the fact that York cannot be a full member of the combined authority because of what is known as the Selby corridor—it is not coterminous. Perhaps he will respond to that point. I am grateful for the indication I have received from Ministers that they are willing to deal with that issue—in the Bill if they can, and if not through other legislation—and it would be helpful if the Secretary of State could place that on the record.

[Mr Pickles]

I am happy to say that what the right hon. Gentleman wants to achieve—to ensure that authorities can work together as part of a deal, even though they are not coterminous—is eminently reasonable. Whether we achieve that through the Bill or through other mechanisms, we are happy to enter into discussions about that, and I am confident we can have a resolution before Christmas. What he seeks is wholly reasonable, wholly sensible, and we will do our best to achieve it.

[Hilary Benn]

I am genuinely grateful to the Secretary of State for that assurance, and I look forward to working with him to bring that change about.

On parish polls, it is clearly not sensible to allow 10 people, in some cases, to trigger a referendum in a parish that represents 10,000, 20,000 or an even larger number of people. We will therefore support that change, and also the proposal that councils in England should allow the recording and videoing of council and committee meetings. In this day and age, big changes in technology make recording and videoing readily possible, and I cannot see the difference between sitting in a meeting, listening and writing down what is being said, or—for those who have shorthand—taking a verbatim record, and making one’s own recording.

As the Secretary of State acknowledged, a new generation of bloggers is relating to politics in a different way, which we should all warmly welcome—frankly, the more people who get to hear what their local council is doing, the better. Who knows? Perhaps this House will one day follow suit and allow those watching us to keep their own records of proceedings—indeed, I may one day be tempted to record the Secretary of State from across the Dispatch Box. I have, however, a sneaking suspicion that Brass Crosby—who, as some Members will know, was committed to the Tower of London in the 1770s for daring as Lord Mayor to release a newspaper editor who had had the audacity to report what was happening in Parliament—and indeed Thomas Hansard, after whom the Official Report is named, would both thoroughly approve of that change.

In conclusion, there is a great deal for the Committee to discuss, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) will do a sterling job leading for the Opposition and responding to the debate. We owe it to ourselves, local authorities and the people that we—and they—represent, to get the right system in place, and it is clear there is still much to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 21st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

In April, the Secretary of State imposed a council tax increase on more than 2 million people on low incomes, because of his changes to council tax benefit. In response to a survey from my office, 112 councils revealed that 156,000 people, including the disabled, carers, veterans and war widows, have already received court summonses. Citizens Advice is seeing people who are having to choose, as it puts it, between staying on the right side of the law and feeding themselves. Since the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the position they now find themselves in, what advice would he give them about what they should do?

[Mr Pickles]

My advice is, “Don’t use bogus statistics and bogus surveys.” The official statistics show clearly that the numbers of summonses and collections are in a much better position than they were under Labour. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there were 3 million summonses a year under Labour. Collection is up and defaulting is down.

[Hilary Benn]

Once again, the Secretary of State does not want to take responsibility for the change he introduced. He should be very careful before he accuses local authorities of producing bogus statistics. I have here the reply from Brentwood council, which has issued 250 summonses; I have here the reply from Epping Forest council, which has issued 337 summonses; and, as the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) is sitting there looking at the floor, I will tell him that South Kesteven has issued 585 summonses. Is it not the truth that the Secretary of State is in denial about the facts and the hardships that his tax rise is causing to people who, remember, are on the lowest incomes, which is why they receive council tax benefit?

[Mr Pickles]

The right hon. Gentleman should be careful. I was not accusing councils; I was accusing him. He talks about Brentwood council: its statistics show that there is virtually no change from the previous year. He is trying to make bricks out of straws. He had a campaign and it was not very successful. A lot of local authorities are doing well and are protecting the poor and the vulnerable. By and large, it is Labour authorities that are letting the side down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend introduces a whole new concept of worthy and unworthy councillors, and that is perhaps a step too far. I am comfortable with the thought that when people object to me as Secretary of State, I can point to my hon. Friend who is a much harder man.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I join the Secretary of State in commending the fire service for how they dealt with that very difficult fire.

Thousands of people on low incomes are now getting council tax summonses because of the Secretary of State’s new poll tax. The Sunday Mirror reports that Peterborough city council, for example, has issued double the number of summonses for non-payment compared with last year. Why does he think that so many people are finding it so difficult to pay the bills that he has imposed on them?

[Mr Pickles]

Let me be absolutely clear: these are local authority schemes. In some parts of the country, people on low incomes are not receiving anything additional. These are schemes put together by local authorities, and it is up to local authorities to defend them.

[Hilary Benn]

It will not quite do for the Secretary of State to introduce the legislation, cut the money, and then attempt to pass the buck to local authorities up and down the country. The truth is that he is out of touch with what is happening to people on low incomes.

Let me try another question. One of those summonsed is a single parent called Charlotte, who has been asked to pay £141.66. She told the newspaper:

“My priority is finding money to get food for my child.”

What choice does the Secretary of State think she should make?

[Mr Pickles]

We have placed before local authorities discretionary help to use in such circumstances. The most interesting thing is this: that money has gone unclaimed. This is a local authority scheme, and it is up to the local authority to defend it.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

I could not have put it better myself. I believe we can move together, arrive at a broad consensus and ensure that homeowners can see developments take place and that planning officers are not bogged down with unnecessary considerations. I welcome the important scrutiny of the Bill in the other place and the majority of the amendments proposed. In the light of the new commitment to reflect, I hope I have convinced the House that amendment 7 is unnecessary and that it should therefore not be accepted today.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s decision to accept all but one of the amendments that were passed in the other place, in particular the sunset clause on section 106, the Secretary of State’s announcement today on the assessment of viability, the fact that at least some criteria will now be published for identifying so-called failing planning authorities, and the right hon. Gentleman’s agreement that when it comes to broadband development, the Secretary of State should have regard to the environment and the conservation of the natural beauty of our countryside.

That leaves the House with the one amendment on permitted development rights, and the very large attendance here today demonstrates the extent of concern. I listened extremely carefully to what the Secretary of State said. There have been many references to eggs in the course of the debate so far. One Member said that the Secretary of State was a good egg, but this particular egg is completely empty when it comes to the detailed proposal that he has in mind. What he said was not persuasive, not just to those on the Opposition Benches but I suspect to those on the Government Back Benches.

This is, in essence, a debate about how decisions should be taken on extensions to residential properties. It is a debate about, first, the process, and secondly, who should take those decisions. At the heart of the debate is a simple question: is it sensible for the Government to impose the change in permitted development rights on every single local planning authority in England? That is what we are debating. The Secretary of State tries to suggest that the proposal is about empowering people, but what he is trying to do is to take away the rights of neighbours to object to developments that they think will affect their rights and their amenity. That is why there is so much concern.

I think it is a centralist proposal that the right hon. Gentleman has advanced. I do not think that it will give the boost to the economy that is being claimed, because I do not think the back gardens of England should be made the victims of the failure of the Government’s economic policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

We will be issuing further guidance on the duty to co-operate. My hon. Friend makes an important point, because this is a new thing. This and other adjoining measures are designed to ensure that local authorities, in co-operation with their local enterprise partnerships, start to think strategically, and from small beginnings I expect this to grow.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

All round the country, hundreds of thousands of low-income households are starting to receive letters from their councils telling them that they will be hit by the Secretary of State’s new poll tax, so taking money out of their pockets. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many people in his local authority of Brentwood are being affected?

[Mr Pickles]

I was giddy with excitement, along with my constituents, to learn that the right hon. Gentleman paid us a visit last Thursday to see the Labour group. There are two members on the Labour group; they are called Mike and Julie. We have to point out that each local authority has to come to its own decision and publish its own facts. We do not do this centrally anymore. We also need to understand that each local authority is responsible for its schemes.

[Hilary Benn]

The Secretary of State has imposed the tax, but he does not even know what is going on in his own local authority. I will tell him the answer to the question: Brentwood council says that 2,000 households will be affected. Last week on my visit I did indeed meet one of those affected. She was a woman who will be hit by the bedroom tax and by his new poll tax. She cannot afford it. She will probably have to move out of the area with her son, taking her away from friends, family, neighbours and the support that she relies on. She does not think it is fair, and I do not think it is fair. What has he got to say to her?

[Mr Pickles]

In the town hall, the Labour party has a very small room, and everybody heard what she had to say and everybody heard him planning this particular question. The figures he has produced are approximate, because nobody entirely knows yet. He knows that any figure with a nought at the end is an approximate figure—or he should know that. It is about time that he and the Labour party woke up to their responsibilities. If they are imposing a tax on the poor, it is entirely up to the local authorities to act. They have the power—indeed, a number of authorities have the power—to remove this completely, but they hide behind and seek to persecute and to tax the poor.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman knows plenty about a bedroom tax, because he has got plenty of spare bedrooms himself.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and advance sight of it. We will, of course, study the announcement in detail and I look forward to debating it in the new year.

The House listened carefully to the Secretary of State, and it is clear that he is living in a world of his own. He simply does not understand the impact that his decisions on funding are having on services and the local people who use and rely on them. This is what his colleagues on the front line say about him. Baroness Eaton, the former Tory chair of the Local Government Association, described the right hon. Gentleman’s understanding of the effect of local government cuts as

“detached from the reality councils are dealing with”.

Sir Merrick Cockell, her successor, has called the cuts “unsustainable” and the Tory leader of Kent says that his county “can’t cope” with further reductions and “is running on empty”.

The Secretary of State carries on regardless, ignoring what is happening on his watch. Last week, he told the Communities and Local Government Committee that the cuts were “modest” and that the LGA’s fears for the future were “utterly ludicrous”. He did not mention this, but this week his top tip for cash-strapped councils was that they should loan out their artworks in return for cash. What planet is he living on? Meanwhile, local authorities have made big efficiency savings, cut costs and laid off 230,000 staff—but still, it is services that are going.

Let us be clear about what is being lost due to the right hon. Gentleman’s unfair cuts—libraries, sports centres, Sure Start centres and places at women’s refuges. Birmingham city council says that because of the cuts and spending pressures, its controllable budget will reduce by half in the next six years. In one case, a council has already been pushed to the brink. Earlier this year, Tory-led West Somerset council was declared to be “not viable” in the longer term—not by Nostradamus, but by the Local Government Association.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that local authorities are facing a 28% reduction in Government funding over this spending review period—the biggest cut in the public sector—even though local government is

“the most efficient part of the public sector”?

Those are not my words, but those of the Prime Minister. On top of that, the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement that a further £445 million would be cut in 2014-15. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is unfairly hitting the poorest areas hardest? The Audit Commission has found that

“the most deprived areas have seen substantially greater reductions in government funding as a share of revenue expenditure than councils in less deprived areas.”

Why are the 10 most deprived local authorities having their spending power reduced by eight times as much per head of population as the 10 least deprived authorities in England? Why will today’s announcement mean that Liverpool will see a 6.2% fall, of £35 million, in its spending power in 2014-15 compared with the previous year, when Mole Valley will see an increase of 0.6%? How on earth can the Secretary of State justify that? Does he have any idea how local councils’ efforts to grow their local economies, encourage apprenticeships and build more homes are being undermined every single day by the Chancellor’s disastrous economic policy, which simply is not working?

Yesterday, the leaders of the core cities wrote to the Secretary of State in blunt terms about the LGA’s graph of doom. They warned that if current plans are not changed,

“there will be no money for anything but social care and waste collection”

later this decade. [Interruption.] That is what the core cities say.

The sad truth is that the right hon. Gentleman is in denial. He has failed to stand up for local communities and he is trying to wash his hands of the consequences. Will he confirm that millions of people on low incomes will now face a council tax increase next April as a result of “poll tax mark 2”—not my words, but those of the man who invented poll tax mark 1, the noble Lord Jenkin?

Councils should, of course, do everything that they can—and they will—to keep the council tax down in these difficult times for families, but the Secretary of State is being disingenuous when he talks about a moral duty not to increase the council tax. By cutting council tax benefit, he has decided that one group in the country will definitely see its council tax go up next year—people on low incomes; that is why they get council tax benefit in the first place. They will see their bills go up in the very same month when people on the very highest incomes will get a cut in their tax bills.

On business rate retention, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no council will be worse off from the change to the new system? Is it not the case that areas with less of an opportunity to attract new businesses will fall further behind as Government grant reduces? What impact does he expect appeals against business rate valuations will have on local authority income? What is the size of the adjustment he has made to the forecasts for this and for total business rate yield?

The Secretary of State did not mention the early intervention grant, but can he confirm whether the whole of the £150 million that has been held back will be allocated to local authorities and can he assure the House that that is being done on the basis of need? Local authorities want to know where they stand. Can he give us the figure for the amount that the Government will now be holding back from the settlement for the in-year safety net?

What provision is the right hon. Gentleman making for capitalisation and does that include the assistance that local authorities that face huge backdated claims arising from equal pay court judgments will clearly need? He mentioned asset sales, so can he tell us how much he estimates local authorities will raise in asset sales in respect of the councils affected? By how much has the Secretary of State reduced the hold-back for the funding of academies?

On public health, although the Secretary of State said that an announcement is yet to be made, will he tell the House what factors have been taken into account in distributing funding for public health? What changes have been made to the proposals for weighting, including for deprivation, that were part of the original Department of Health consultation? On the fire service settlement, why are the metropolitan fire authorities facing such a big percentage reduction in their spending power? How many firefighters does he expect to go as a result of what he has announced today and how will fire prevention services be affected?

Finally, on the local government pension scheme, why should a full-time council leader in a big city not be entitled to be a member of the scheme—the Secretary of State did not mention this—while mayors will be so entitled? Can he confirm to the House that continued membership of the pension scheme will be open to his friend the Mayor of London?

This is a bad day for local communities and the people they elect to look after their interests. They would have liked to hear from the Secretary of State a commitment to fair funding and a settlement that would help them through tough times, and they wish that he would understand the difficulties they are going through. Instead, they have a continuation of the profoundly unfair way in which funding has been distributed from a Secretary of State who simply refuses to recognise what is actually going on around him.

[Mr Pickles]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is entirely typical of him—perhaps he is not a very quick reader—that of the 50 tips he ignored the ones that are going to save billions of pounds, because apparently that is not terribly important. He was part of a Government who promised to deliver £52 billion of cuts. He stands at the Dispatch Box and pretends to local government that it would have faced no cuts under his Government. He knows as well as every single Member of this House that he would have been proposing similar cuts, and that remains the absolute truth. I remind hon. Members that the former Chancellor said in the Labour Budget of March 2010 that there would be £300 million of cuts to regional development agency regeneration, to the working neighbourhood fund—by the way, we picked up the tab for that—to the local enterprise growth initiative, and to the housing and planning delivery grant. On top of that there were £185 million of back-of-a-fag packet cuts to time-limited community programmes and rationalisations of others.

The right hon. Gentleman’s response might best be described as the Jo Moore memorial lecture, because the bad news that she sought to bury on 9/11 was about councillors’ pensions. Just to be clear, the contributions of those who have contributed will be protected, but from the middle of next year they will no longer be able to make a contribution. That will save £7 million, but £7 million probably means absolutely nothing to the right hon. Gentleman.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about Birmingham. Which local authority got itself into the most appalling mess over equal pay when the rest of local government was putting aside sensible savings? Birmingham, which now faces a potential bill of over £700 million. Who is getting Birmingham out of the mess? We are. We will be prepared to allow Birmingham to pay off this sum, which other councils dealt with sensibly over the past 20 years by the sale of assets. Birmingham should be grateful for that. I can further tell the House that out of the departmental expenditure limits—the money from Eland house not relating to local government—we have stumped up £100 million to help Birmingham in this process, because we recognise that it will take some time to deliver the results. Birmingham, and the right hon. Gentleman, would be in a right old mess were it not for us, and I look forward to receiving an apology from him.

The right hon. Gentleman asks why some authorities are actually increasing their spending power and says that it is an outrage. There is just one reason—the new homes bonus. [Interruption.] Oh, yes it is. It is exactly the reason, as the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) will see if he cares to look at the figures. In that lies the clue to this settlement, which ensures that local authorities now have greater control. That is due not only to the new homes bonus but to the retention of the business rate, which is how local authorities can make a big difference.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about academies. The figure is £150 million and the hold-back is £24 million.

One set of councils is seeking to tax the poor in the way that it is seeking to tax pensioners, widows and single mothers living at home—Labour councils. You will not catch a Tory authority trying to ensure that poor people have to pay 30% of the council tax. That is why we introduced the £100 million—to protect the people who have the misfortune to be represented by a Labour authority.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 17th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is a massive fan of trade unions. Indeed, I believe that the trade union movement has done many marvellous things for this country. One thing that has been great is its independence from employers, and I am desperately worried that the taxpayers’ money that is subsidising trade unions might impinge on that independence. I will shortly be issuing guidance to local authorities about how we might strengthen trade unions by removing some of their funding.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

How many people who go out to work of a morning does the Secretary of State estimate will see their council tax rise next April because he has decided that people on low earnings should pay more council tax?

[Mr Pickles]

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in his premise. It is his party that says that pensioners should pay. It is his party that is seeking to tax the poor. It is my party and the Liberal Democrats that are offering some support. The right hon. Gentleman had better look after his own party before he comes here and lectures us.

[Hilary Benn]

The Secretary of State, of course, did not want to answer the question. The answer is that nearly 800,000 people who go out to work every morning face a potential rise in their council tax bill next April, when people who are on the top rate of tax will get a tax cut. If we look at what is happening in his own back yard, Brentwood borough council has just published a case study on its own scheme, which I have here. Under its proposals, a working mum who works more than 24 hours a week could see her council tax bill rise by more than £600 a year. Why is he so hellbent on penalising people who go out to work?

[Mr Pickles]

That, of course, was before we intervened and offered our process, which will protect people and ensure that nobody has to pay more than 8.5%. What does the right hon. Gentleman say about his own councils, which are looking to make people pay 30% on council tax? He has been singularly neglectful in his duty. He knows that his Government, had they been successful at the last election, would have made £52 million of cuts. So far, he has not accepted a single one of our cuts. The right hon. Gentleman is inconsistent in his consistency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

After the Secretary of State’s shambolic performance in last week’s debate on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, it is clear that he cannot even tell his Hackney from his Haringey. Why did he use out-of-date figures in his ministerial correction the following day when naming Haringey as the worst planning authority, when in the year to June the council that actually had the worst record on deciding major developments within 13 weeks—according to his Department’s figures—was Kensington and Chelsea; or is he just determined to blame a Labour council, as long as it begins with the letter H?

[Mr Pickles]

This gives me the opportunity to apologise to Hackney. I of course corrected the record at the first available chance, and wrote to the mayor of Hackney apologising. However, it is with regret that I must tell the House that this is by no means an uncommon occasion. Between 2007 and 2010, there were no fewer than 300-odd apologies and corrections, perhaps the most interesting of which—I am sorry that the former local government Minister has gone—was when Labour mistook Newcastle-under-Lyme for Newcastle upon Tyne and handed £10 million across to the former. I am delighted to say that no money changed hands under my mistake.

[Hilary Benn]

That was all very interesting but there was no answer to my question about performance. Let us turn to another shambles.

The Secretary of State’s determination to change the protection of our beautiful national parks from intrusive phone masts and telecoms equipment has caused a great deal of concern. He told the House during the debate last week that clause 7 of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill relates “exclusively to broadband”, even though the Bill says no such thing. Will he therefore now commit to introducing an amendment in Committee to make it clear that the authorities will still be able to object to phone masts of any height in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty?

[Mr Pickles]

Frankly, the right hon. Gentleman should know better. We replied to his question, and it is clear that such changes can take place only through secondary legislation. We have made it absolutely clear that we are only concerned with broadband, so his rather ridiculous posturing concerning 4G—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has become obsessed with 4G. He wants money to be spent on this and spent on that—he should do a bit more work and apply himself a bit more.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Ministerial Corrections

[Hilary Benn]

If my hon. Friend bears with me a moment, I shall come presently to precisely that point. The first question that the House must ask the Government is that if they are to propose such a fundamental change to the way in which planning decisions have been taken since 1947—that is about 60 years of local decision making—the Secretary of State must have had really strong evidence on why such a change is needed, so where is the evidence? I will make this very easy for him, and I will happily give way. Can he name one example of a so-called failing planning authority? Will he name an authority now?

[Mr Pickles]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows and, more particularly, as other Opposition Members know, I have been more than helpful to those Members who have had trouble with planning authorities and I have done my best to move things along, but I am very happy to name the worst, which is Hackney.

[Official Report, 5 November 2012, Vol. 552, c. 608-09.]

Letter of correction from Eric Pickles:

An error has been identified in the answer given to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on 5 November 2012.

The correct answer should have been:

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

If my hon. Friend bears with me a moment, I shall come presently to precisely that point. The first question that the House must ask the Government is that if they are to propose such a fundamental change to the way in which planning decisions have been taken since 1947—that is about 60 years of local decision making—the Secretary of State must have had really strong evidence on why such a change is needed, so where is the evidence? I will make this very easy for him, and I will happily give way. Can he name one example of a so-called failing planning authority? Will he name an authority now?

[Mr Pickles]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows and, more particularly, as other Opposition Members know, I have been more than helpful to those Members who have had trouble with planning authorities and I have done my best to move things along, but I am very happy to name the worst, which is Hackney.[Official Report, 6 November 2012, Vol. 552, c. 5-6MC.]

[Hilary Benn]

That is extremely interesting. If the Secretary of State can name what is in his view a failing planning authority, he must know the criteria for judging a failing planning authority, yet the criteria are nowhere in the Bill; he is allowed to make them up as he goes along. Officials watching this will be thinking, “Oh, my goodness, he shouldn’t have done that,” because he has just fettered his discretion and the consultation that he will probably have to undertake in deciding which are failing planning authorities.

[Mr Pickles]

I also made it absolutely clear that, of course, we are working with the LGA and local authorities to define this, and we are prepared to consult on it. But the right hon. Gentleman asks what the worst planning authority is, and I have named it. Whether that will be regarded as a failing authority will be a matter of consultation.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

Having looked at this when I was Secretary of State, I recognise that there are some such cases, but there are also lots of others where the provision in the Commons Act 2006 is used quite properly to protect in perpetuity the public’s use of green space—village greens and so on—which they have had the right to enjoy for many years. Like lots of things, it is about getting the balance right, and this clause, as formulated, has not got it right; that is certainly the view of the Open Spaces Society.

I listened very carefully to what the Secretary of State said about delaying business rates revaluation. We all want to support measures that will help businesses at a difficult time, but we will want to scrutinise this in Committee to understand the balance of the argument. It would be extremely helpful—I put this to him in all sincerity—to see his and the Department’s assessment of who would gain and who would not, because a lot of businesses are saying that an earlier revaluation would help them. It would also be of assistance if he could set out the impact of a change on the finances of local authorities now that the Local Government Finance Act 2012 is on the statute book.

[Mr Pickles]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point. Of course we will publish an impact assessment and the calculations of the Valuation Office Agency on Report.

[Hilary Benn]

That is extremely helpful, and we look forward to seeing those documents.

Amid all the centralisation, there are some clauses that seem sensible and that we will support—the Secretary of State smiles—such as those on the energy industry, on removing the anomaly on disposal of land for less than best consideration, on the review of minerals permissions, and on allowing the process for stopping up or diverting highways and public paths to run alongside the planning process— which is perfectly sensible recommendation of the Penfold review. Overall, however, the bad in the Bill far outweighs the good.

That brings me to clause 23, which is an absolutely astonishing proposal. Labour Members are in favour of businesses giving shares to employees and think it a jolly good thing. We do not, however, need the Bill for that because companies are already perfectly free to give shares to their workers. The clause does something completely different, and, for the first time that I can recall, employers will be allowed to buy their way out of legislation that protects their workers. The legislation is explicit and there is a tariff—[Interruption.] I hear the cry of “voluntary”, and we shall come on to whether that is the case.

The fact is that for between £2,000 and £50,000, a company can pay to strip its workers of their rights. That is what the clause does. Never mind cash for questions; this is cash for repeal. What on earth is the connection between giving an employee shares, and taking away their fundamental rights in the workplace? Given the wording of the clause, some might say that such a change could happen only if the company and the individual agreed on it. That, however, is true only for existing employees at the time the legislation comes into force. Their choice will be quite simple: take the cash and lose the rights, or lose the cash and keep the rights. Many of them will ask, “How lucky do I feel today and when I think about the future of the company?”

The Government have made it crystal clear that in future employers will not have to get an agreement and will be able to offer only contracts involving shares. It means that the only way someone will be able to get a job with that company is if they give up their rights—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, shouts from a sedentary position that it is a choice, but one feature of this Bill seems to be that those who are sponsoring it have not actually read it.

A Treasury background note published at the same time as the Bill states that

“new start-ups can choose to offer only this new type of contract for new hires.”

The English is a bit dodgy, but I think it refers to new workers whom a company is taking on—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary says it is a choice, but—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend has done through the all-party group, which produced an excellent report. I am sure she will be pleased that we are releasing £25 million. We are making some initial money available, but we need to be absolutely clear that LEPs are there to enable local authorities to come together and to share powers and sovereignty, so the majority of this money will be on the basis of match funding. We are not going to fund LEPs if local people do not value them, but if they do and they are prepared to put resources in, we will match that funding.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

May I join others in welcoming the new ministerial team to their positions? Local decisions about planning have been the foundation of our system for at least two generations, but on 6 September the Secretary of State, the only survivor of the reshuffle, astonished everyone when he announced legislation to hand over this power to the Planning Inspectorate in cases where he thinks local councils’ decisions are not up to scratch. We all want speed, but when it comes to quality why does he think that he should decide what good decisions are, rather than locally elected councillors?

[Mr Pickles]

I have to say that that was an extraordinary intervention from a former Minister who looked to build 10 eco-towns right in the middle of our green belt and gave a number of powers to someone in my position to intervene in the running of local authorities. Our approach builds on a basic right—an applicant has a right to appeal on the basis of non-determination; it simply builds on that and is there to help local authorities. In most cases, this is about where local authorities simply cannot cope, which is why we are urging mergers with adjoining authorities’ planning departments and why they will always find a friend to local planning in myself.

[Hilary Benn]

That was, if I may say so, not an example of muscular localism, but rather a lot of waffle. The truth is that the Secretary of State cannot explain how this legislation will work—I suspect that that is because No. 10 has only just thought about it; he has not yet clarified whether it will apply to planning applications for housing, and Government Members might like to ask that question. His Conservative colleague, the Local Government Association leader, Sir Merrick Cockell has called the plans

“a blow to local democracy”.

Is it not the case that the Secretary of State is no longer in control of planning policy? Are not a lot of local communities up and down the country going to be very angry when they discover that he has taken away from them the power to decide on planning applications locally?

[Mr Pickles]

Again, I admire the right hon. Gentleman’s pizzazz on this matter. However, we are not imposing eco-towns on the green belt and we are getting rid of the spatial strategies, subject, of course, to a proper review of the environmental assessment, which seems to be inconsistent with the position he sets out. We are there to simply help local authorities. If he is worried about me imposing something on the green belt of Essex, let me assure him that Stansgate abbey is absolutely safe.

Housing and Planning

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his oral statement and for the fact that he graciously offered one after my urgent question had been granted. But, once again, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have major changes in policy being announced first to the media and not to the House. We also notice that the Secretary of State has been uncharacteristically silent in recent weeks, while the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor have all been busy changing policy that we all thought he was responsible for.

The Government know that we have a housing crisis, but it is a crisis of their own making. Housing starts fell by 10% last year and affordable housing starts fell by a catastrophic 68%—that was a direct result of the cut in Government funding for affordable housing, which the Secretary of State allowed to happen. The Chancellor has put the economy back into double-dip recession, those who are looking to buy are finding it hard to get mortgages or to raise the deposits needed, and house builders who already have planning permission are not progressing those developments because they do not think that people will buy the houses.

We support measures that will help growth and build more houses—including the debt guarantee—and help first-time buyers. Indeed, we have been urging the Government to bring forward investment in housing. Will the Secretary of State tell the House when he expects that the number of affordable housing starts, which was only 15,000 last year, will match the 54,000 starts achieved in 2009-10 by the last Labour Government? Will he also tell us how many families have benefited to date from the NewBuy scheme?

The fundamental problem is not the planning system and not section 106 agreements, which are very important in providing much-needed affordable housing. The Local Government Association reports that planning permission is already in the system for 400,000 homes—it is the Chancellor’s failed economic plan that is preventing them from being built.

On section 106, how many affordable homes does he anticipate will now not be built because of his proposed changes, given that the National Housing Federation said this morning that section 106 provides 35,000 affordable homes a year? Will any replacement homes that manage to be built be built on the same development sites so that we can have mixed communities?

The Deputy Prime Minister suggested on the radio this morning that at present developers have to wait five years before they can renegotiate section 106 agreements. Will the Secretary of State confirm that those agreements can in fact be renegotiated at any time if the parties agree and that a number of local authorities have been doing exactly that because of the current economic circumstances? What evidence will developers be required to produce to show that a scheme is not viable? Will he clarify whether the proposed changes apply only to existing section 106 agreements or also to new ones, given that only last month he announced that for

“all planning obligations agreed after 6 April 2010, the period will remain at five years”?

This morning, the Secretary of State has also just announced in his written statement—I notice that he did not refer to it in his oral statement—a bombshell that threatens local decision making on planning decisions. The written statement laid before the House this morning states that if an authority

“has a track record of consistently poor performance in the speed or quality of its decisions”—

we must ask who will judge that quality—the Government propose

“to legislate to allow applications to be decided by the Planning Inspectorate”.

Can he explain why, having consistently denounced centralised decision making, he is now proposing a fundamental change? This is not a technical detail, but a fundamental change in which he proposes to take the power in future to decide whether he thinks that local planning decisions are up to scratch. If he does not, planning power will be taken out of the hands of local people. So much for localism. Does he not realise that that will cause alarm up and down the country, including among those on both sides of the House?

We have read a great deal about the Chancellor’s wish to undermine the green belt, which is much valued by all of us. Will the Secretary of State clarify what is happening? The Chancellor says that it will change, but the Secretary of State says that it will not. Who is right? Why is this shambles occurring?

When does the Secretary of State plan to publish more details on the relaxation of permitted development rights? Will the current height restrictions be maintained? Will he confirm that that will not apply to conservation areas and that where article 4 directions are in place they will remain in place?

Having completed the biggest change in planning policy for a generation earlier this year and trumpeted its success, the Secretary of State, in an extraordinary spectacle, has stood up before the House and, in effect, told us that his planning system is not fit for purpose. When will Ministers stop casting around for somebody and something else to blame, finally admit that it is the Chancellor’s failed economic policy has led to a collapse in house building and change course?

[Mr Pickles]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what I think was a partial welcome for these measures. The previous planning Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), had occasion to compare the right hon. Gentleman, whom we all love greatly, to Lady Bracknell. Today, he acceded to Lady Bracknell sucking a wasp.

Given the party the right hon. Gentleman represents, he should remember that under the previous Labour Government the number of social housing units fell by just under 500,000. He wonders why the housing position was so difficult: it was the stewardship of his party that caused the problem.

Let me deal with the various questions that he asked. We will publish the figures on NewBuy very shortly, but I am sure that he will be pleased that it has been welcomed by the sector. That gives people the opportunity to get quality houses that are newly built. On affordable housing, he seems to have missed the point of the statement. We are talking about building additional social houses and will be building up to 15,000. We should celebrate that. The problem with Labour—I say this with lots of respect—is that it seems to think that because a plan has been passed it happens. If social housing is uneconomic and developers build nothing, it does not matter if the ratio for social housing is set at 50%, because 50% of nothing is still nothing. There needs to be a dose of realism.

There seems to be a misunderstanding among Labour Members about section 106. It can be enormously helpful to builders and gives social housing in certain parts of the country where there is high demand a ready and available customer. In some parts of the country, however, there have been unrealistic views about what is possible and that is holding back development. That is why earlier this year I wrote to local councils and asked them carefully to consider the process of renegotiation. I am very pleased that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, about 40% responded. I commend them for that and they should be regarded as heroes and as part of the process. However, there still remain a significant number of authorities that have refused to accept the economic realities and that regard this as a badge of honour—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

The Labour party’s idea of a housing policy was to demolish perfectly good houses. We felt it was important to get houses that had been left unoccupied back into business. That is why the scheme is available through the new homes bonus, and it is also the reason for the reforms to get clusters of unoccupied houses back together, which the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) spoke of earlier. We are determined that what are perfectly good houses, in areas where communities have lived together for many years, should be brought back into circulation.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Conservative councillors must have been very encouraged over the weekend to read the Secretary of State’s admission in The Sunday Times that lots of them are going to lose their jobs come Thursday. Families are struggling because of the failure of the Government’s economic policy, but at least they know that council tax is lower in areas with Labour councils than in Conservative ones. Would the Secretary of State like to congratulate Labour councils on their achievement?

[Mr Pickles]

I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State, not only on attending his son’s wedding last week, but on continuing the trend of fiddling figures. The only way he can get at those figures is to ignore all the district councils. In band D, the Labour party continues to be £62 more expensive than the Conservative party.

[Hilary Benn]

I know that the Secretary of State does not really do detail, but I would have thought that even he could work out the figures for himself. The band D council tax rate is £81 lower in Labour areas than in Tory areas. He has made great play of trying to keep council tax down, but as we heard earlier, because of his legislation, his plan next year is to increase the council tax paid by a lot of people who are on low incomes. Does that not show that, far from us all being in it together, the Secretary of State is determined to dump some people in it more than others? Is that not the real reason why he has thrown in the towel before polling day?

[Mr Pickles]

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has form on council tax. When he was deputy leader of Ealing council, it increased by 65% in one year only, although we should not be surprised, because council tax has doubled under Labour. However, I repeat: the only way he can arrive at anything close to those figures is by ignoring every single district council in the country. As the small print of his figures clearly shows, he has ignored a third of councils in order to arrive at those ridiculous figures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

It is certainly my view that, provided any object does not get in the way of someone doing their job, a discreet display of their religion is something that we should welcome.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Given the great public interest in the national planning policy framework, we would all like to know which construction and property companies the Secretary of State and Communities and Local Government Ministers have met in the past few months, especially as the Electoral Commission revealed that firms in the sector gave just over £500,000 to the Conservative party between July and December last year. The public unfortunately cannot find out that information because no details of meetings between CLG Ministers and others have been published since June 2011. May I ask the Secretary of State, who is responsible for publication, why that is?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

Obviously, neighbourhood planning is a radical new right that gives communities and businesses real power in deciding the shape of the place. We will be providing £20,000 for each of the front-runner projects so that they can get on to the front foot. Should my hon. Friend wish to be involved and to meet me or my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, she would be more than welcome.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is on record as saying that he is determined to help those facing the “frightening prospect of repossession”, yet the Government are making that prospect more likely for many hard-pressed families. The number of forced repossessions, in which the bailiffs come in, has risen by 27% since he took up his job. What is he going to do about it?

Points of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again, a major policy announcement from the Department for Communities and Local Government has appeared in the newspapers before a statement has been made to the House. I refer in particular to the report on the Financial Times website on Saturday 18 November on the details of the mortgage indemnity scheme, and the front-page report in The Times of the same date about both the mortgage indemnity scheme and right-to-buy discounts. Mr Speaker, you have been consistently clear that statements about policy should be made to the House before they are made anywhere else. What can now be done, given that this is the third occasion when that has not happened in respect of a policy statement from this Department?

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Lord Pickles

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

I know my hon. Friend has a considerable interest in council housing and has been a substantial champion of it. Yes, indeed, that reform is part of the coalition agreement, and, although it has taken some while to negotiate, once it is delivered we will be able to distribute debt throughout the country and place authorities in a much better and stronger position. I know that it enjoys support across the House.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s words about Simon Milton?

As a direct result of a decision taken by the Secretary of State, the most deprived 10% of single-tier councils will see their spending power reduced by almost four times as much as the least deprived 10%. So far, he has failed to justify that choice of his. Will he now explain to the House why he thinks that it is fair?

[Mr Pickles]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. I hope that he will be extremely comfortable, and we will do our best to increase his comfort as the months go on.

The answer is very straightforward. The previous Government made a number of decisions to attack the most deprived areas by removing measures such as the working neighbourhoods fund. They left no provision, so it was up to us to put in some provision to help the most needy. In addition, we have ensured that under those schemes the most needy authorities receive more than the least needy authorities.

[Hilary Benn]

I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words, but an answer to the question would have been even nicer, so let me try another one.

In the Secretary of State’s speech to the Conservative party conference this year, he promised new safeguards for playing fields. In fact, he is scrapping Labour’s planning policy guidance in a way that

“significantly weakens the current protection on sports facilities”—

not my words, but those of Sport England. Why is he doing that, and will he now revise his national planning policy framework to put that protection back in?

[Mr Pickles]

I know the right hon. Gentleman is new to the job, but he is very distinguished and should at least have done his homework. He knows perfectly well that that is certainly not the case. We are having very constructive discussions with Sport England about planning policy, and those protections will be there.