EU Structural Funds: Least Developed Regions

Jake Berry Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

I agree. The European Union has demonstrated itself to be a very effective redistributive mechanism, taking from richer areas and redistributing to poorer ones. In my area of South Yorkshire, I imagine that we are a net beneficiary of that, although the UK as a whole is a net contributor.

Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and west Wales and the valleys are already recipients of funding for that category, but have been joined by Tees Valley and Durham, Lincolnshire and my own region of South Yorkshire, because those three regions have now sunk below the 75% threshold, too.

In preparing for the debate, I consulted the House of Commons Library, which, as ever, provided excellent independent assessment and support—I commend those in the Library for the work that they always do for us—and confirmed the CPMR analysis. The Library said that, if anything, the CPMR report underestimated the position because it had not taken account of southern Scotland, which would have been eligible, and added that

“the ‘Outer London – East and North East’ region is also on the borderline”

for classification for support. The amount of funding for which UK regions could have been eligible may have been even higher than in the CPMR analysis.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

I will raise a point about the CPMR analysis that I was going to make during my speech, because it is hugely important to the hon. Gentleman’s argument. I saw a copy of the House of Commons Library briefing, which confirmed that the analysis said that some areas could see funding rise by 22%, but, as I am sure he knows, the European Union has said that it does not want funding to go up by more than 8% in relevant areas. I do not think that the Library covered that. That would be worth expanding on as the hon. Gentleman develops his argument.

[Paul Blomfield]

I will mention the 22% increase specifically as I proceed.

I am delighted that Members from across the regions that would have benefited are in the Chamber. Everybody will want to focus on the impact in their own areas but, as the Minister indicated, the projections indicate that the UK would be entitled to an increase of 22% in funding. I am sure that if we were a participating member, we would be arguing strongly to ensure that that assessment was matched in reality and that the funding came through.

The funding estimate is up from the €l0.6 billion that we received from 2014 to 2020 to approximately €13 billion. Part of the reason that the CPMR estimates that increase is that we would now have five less developed regions, compared with two during the current funding period. The analysis states:

“All five of these regions would stand to receive EU support in excess of 500 euros per capita for the seven-year period.”

On current figures, that would result in £605 million for South Yorkshire to support economic growth.

There is a sense of déjà vu, because South Yorkshire has been here before. When the Thatcher Government decimated our coal and steel industries, and our whole economic base with them, we became one of the poorest regions in Europe. The EU stepped in with funding that was critical to rebuilding our economy, funding projects decided by local politicians and delivered by local bodies.

We received £820 million of objective 1 funding—levering in matched funding—which was channelled into more than 250 organisations and 650 projects. That encouraged investment, stimulated the development of new growth and high-technology sectors, helped businesses to modernise and become more competitive, supported innovation, helped with the commercialisation of research, developed skills and provided infrastructure in the region. We saw real transformation in a variety of ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on proposing and securing the debate. I put him on notice that I intend to finish early to give him the customary ability to say that he disagrees with most of what I say. I will let him think about that while I am talking—he may surprise himself.

Many hon. Members have spoken in the debate, and I was most encouraged by the heartfelt speeches by the Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), about the importance of this issue. It really demonstrated to me the passion there is across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to achieve and drive a local community. As a proud Unionist, I was reminded of the awesome foursome of our United Kingdom, which we should hold precious in our hearts. When the UK shared prosperity fund comes forward, I hope it will demonstrate our commitment to create growth in every single part of the UK, wherever it may be.

We have had a wide-ranging debate. As well as talking about the shared prosperity fund, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, the proposer of the debate, took the opportunity to make his fundamental point that the Government have not supported the regions. I fundamentally disagree. This is the Government who created the northern powerhouse, and we are investing hundreds of millions—in fact, billions—of pounds directly into the northern economy. We did not see that under the last Labour Government. If the hon. Gentleman wants proof that the northern powerhouse is real, he has only to look to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), the proud Mayor of the Sheffield city region, who is sitting a few seats down from him, and to his four mayoral colleagues across the north of England.

We heard from many hon. Members about our being such a centralised country. For the first time in a generation in England, this Government have taken power, money and influence away from London and returned it to our regions. Surely that is a good thing. I am sure it is widely supported by Members across the Chamber. Those of us who want to see all areas of our country thrive should welcome that decentralisation and return of powers to mayors and regions.

[Mr Betts]

I am sure the Minister agrees that this is about not just Government actions but the impact of those actions. Will he confirm that, despite what the Government have done, or think they have done, since 2010, the difference in gross value added between the south-east and the north has not changed?

[Jake Berry]

The hon. Gentleman will have to send me the figures he refers to. Across the north of England, unemployment is lower than it has been for a generation. Picking up on the comments of the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), £450 million has been committed to a devolution deal for the Tees valley and £120 million has been invested in the SSI site.

Frankly, if the Labour local authorities in the Sheffield city region could get their act together and agree what powers they should hand to the Mayor of South Yorkshire—I know he is already doing an excellent job, but I want him to be given those powers so he can continue to drive the hopes and dreams of the people of South Yorkshire—the Sheffield city region could receive nearly £1 billion as part of its devolution deal. It is shameful that Labour councils are blocking this Government’s giving nearly £1 billion to the Sheffield city region. The councils should hang their heads in shame. We are debating European structural funds, but all this is connected; we cannot consider Europe on its own.

Let me set out some truths. There was reference to a report that mentioned growth of up to 22% in money for less developed areas. That report does not take into account the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, about European countries that may join the European Union during the spending period; it does not take into account the cap that the European Union itself has said it would like to see on spending increases; and it is an estimate. That estimate would go into the European Union and be negotiated.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Berry]

I will in a moment. I will develop this point first.

Once the negotiation had taken place in Europe, the British Government would bring that figure into the comprehensive spending review and negotiate how it was distributed—which parts should go to European structural funds, to the Department for Work and Pensions and to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Only after that would any of the bodies have certainty about how much they were going to receive.

In fact, if we accept that the quantum of the UK shared prosperity fund should be negotiated through the comprehensive spending review, people will find themselves with exactly the same certainty under that fund as they would have had if we had continued with European structural funds. There is of course certainty until January 2021, when the current spending period ends, and the Government have been clear that the UK shared prosperity fund will start in 2021, so there will be no gap.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Berry]

I have to give way first to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, who opened the debate.

People talked about crashing out of the European Union with no deal. Frankly, I do not expect that to happen. Nor do I accept that, even if it did happen, it would look like a crash out of the European Union. However, even if we accepted that analysis—I do not—the Treasury has given a guarantee about the current spending period for European structural funds, which means people who are in receipt of them or want to apply for them should carry on as normal, regardless of Brexit.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister knows we are not talking about the current period of structural funds. We are talking about the next period of structural funds, and about what we would have expected to receive had we remained a member of the European Union. We should receive no less than that. I know the European Commission has said since the publication of the CPMR report that, in part because of the impact on the EU budget as a result of Brexit, it may be that regions can expect to receive not 22% but 8% more, but that is not the circumstance we are debating. We are debating what we would have got had we remained in the European Union. Even if I accepted the Minister’s premise, that would mean £536 million for South Yorkshire. Will he guarantee that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry]

The hon. Gentleman needs to make a decision. It is all well and good debating what we would get if we remained in the European Union, but we will not remain in the European Union. He has to decide whose side he is on. There are 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit. Is he on their side, or is he on the side of the cabal of politicians in this House who have sought repeatedly to block Brexit? I know whose side I am on. I am on the side of the hundreds, thousands and millions of people across the north of England who voted for Brexit. They gave this Parliament a clear instruction. To debate what life would be like if we remained in the EU is, frankly, an irrelevance.

I hope I can now move on to address some of the other points—

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Berry]

I will, because I said I would, but it has to be brief.

[Patricia Gibson]

I came to this debate to ask for clarity. If I heard the Minister correctly, it appears we now have clarity. Although he has not told us what will happen to this money in a no-deal situation, he has, if I have understood him correctly, clarified that the Government are giving no guarantees to the projects that currently benefit from structural funds about the next funding period. Is that correct?

[Jake Berry]

I hope the hon. Lady goes back and reads the Hansard report of my opening statement. I have limited time, but she will find that I answered both those questions. Many people—including the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, who is chuntering and chuckling to himself—have said that the problem is that places do not have certainty. I was simply pointing out that even if we remained in Europe—I sincerely hope we do not—they still would not have the certainty they seek in any event.

I want to mention briefly the comments of the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who said we should start some form of consultation. Although, clearly, the consultation has been delayed, I know he is aware, because it has been said in the House when he has been present, that more than 500 people have already been involved in a consultation with the Government—what we might call a pre-consultation consultation. I have consulted widely with the metro Mayors both about this subject and more widely about the impact of Brexit in places such as South Yorkshire, where the hon. Member for Barnsley Central is the Mayor. We are already involved in detailed discussions with officials in the devolved Administrations about the form and function of the UK shared prosperity fund, of which I am sure the SNP spokesman is aware.

I wish I had time to talk in more detail about the brilliant speeches that were made by many others, but I will move directly to address some of the points made by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for City of Durham, and I am sure many others. The Government have been absolutely clear that we will respect the devolution settlement when it comes to the UK shared prosperity fund. That has not changed, and it will not change. We have been clear that we will consult widely in order to get right the UK shared prosperity fund, which is designed to tackle inequality.

I know that, in many cases, the people who spoke about the benefit of European funds know they are not perfect. The SNP spokesman said he sees a wee European flag on many projects. One of my jobs in Government is to take back the money from projects that forgot to put that wee European flag on them, because it is one of the requirements of the hugely complicated and bureaucratic EU structural funds that if someone does not put that wee European flag on their project, the money, in many cases, has to be recovered. We are consulting on a UK shared prosperity fund to ensure that funding is simplified. We will be consulting shortly, and the quantum of the fund will be set during the comprehensive spending review, in the same way that EU structural funds would have been.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jake Berry Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

5. What plans the Government have to ensure that Scottish towns benefit from the stronger towns fund.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that the Government recently announced the stronger towns fund, which is part of a commitment to create growth and prosperity in all parts of our United Kingdom.

[Stephen Kerr]

When the stronger towns fund statement was made at the beginning of March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said he would set out details on additional funding for Scotland and how it will benefit towns in Scotland. When will my constituents in Stirling see those details, and when will the fund be open for applications from Scotland?

[Jake Berry]

My hon. Friend’s constituents are, of course, already benefiting from £45 million through the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal. We are working to ensure that the benefit of the stronger towns fund can be felt in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are working with the devolved Administrations on the best way to achieve that, and we will release further details in due course.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

We are still waiting for important details of the stronger towns fund. Whether it be in Scotland, England or Wales—all over the country—our towns have seen lower job growth than in our cities and have often been harder hit by austerity. We have lost sports centres, libraries, community centres and children’s centres, as services have been shrunk back by austerity into the cities. We urgently need the details of the fund, because we need investment in jobs and public services in our towns.

[Jake Berry]

I am not sure I agree with the right hon. Lady that austerity is the reason for services being shrunk back into the cities. Successive Governments have failed to concentrate on creating growth in our towns across the United Kingdom, which is why we are working on the prospectus for the stronger towns fund. I hope to see exciting bids come forward, not least from her constituency, to see how we, as a Government, can back our northern towns and our towns elsewhere in England.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It speaks volumes that even the Scottish Tories are disappointed by the stronger towns fund, which represents a drop in the ocean compared with the estimated loss of €13 billion of European regional development fund money that towns, villages, cities and high streets will lose under the Tories’ chaotic Brexit plans. Can the Minister guarantee that not a single penny will be lost to Scotland as a result of this chaos?

[Jake Berry]

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady has some sort of special insight. She seems to think that ERDF funding has already been lost. It is, of course, correct that the Government consult widely, not least with the devolved Administrations, on the future of the UK shared prosperity fund. It is absolutely right that we focus on delivering growth in every part of our United Kingdom, including Scotland.

[Alison Thewliss]

It is undeniable that money we would have got through ERDF funding will be lost on leaving the European Union, and this Government have no plans and no guarantees to replace that money. What is more, this Tory Government are intent on stringing Scotland along with promises of money—promises that, by their very nature, undermine the principles of devolution. Does the Minister not understand that, or does he just not care? He needs to show that he respects the Scotland Act 1998. If not, we move on.

[Jake Berry]

The hon. Lady says it is undeniable that money has already been lost.

[Alison Thewliss]

indicated assent.

[Jake Berry]

That is not correct. If the hon. Lady has details, perhaps she will let me have them. We have been absolutely clear that we will respect all the devolution settlement as we move forward with the UK shared prosperity fund. But she does not have to wait, as we have already had 500 face-to-face engagements with stakeholders. I have engaged with all of England’s metro mayors, and we continue to have discussions with the devolved Administrations. I would have thought that, as an SNP Member of Parliament, she had been told that by her colleagues up in Scotland.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What steps he is taking to ensure that planning applications (a) maximise economic opportunities and (b) tackle local housing needs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

The Secretary of State has issued a national planning policy framework that provides details on how economic opportunities should be included in applications that look to tackle local housing need.

[Rachael Maskell]

When a proposed economic development does not provide for sufficient good-quality jobs for our city, when proposed housing fails to address current and future need and when proposed car use only adds to an already gridlocked city, how will the Minister review planning so that ordinary residents have a real voice and so that councils and developers have to act on independent evidence to address local need, not their own interests?

[Jake Berry]

I believe the hon. Lady is referring to the planning application for the centre of York, on which she and I have met, and on which I have also met my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy).

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) is aware that the Secretary of State is currently considering this application, so it would not be right for me to comment. It is also right for me to say that I have formally recused myself from making a decision on the application because of my meetings with her and others.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)]

Planning applications that could deliver hundreds of new homes in Fareham are in limbo following advice from Natural England, which has instructed that planning permission should be refused unless developments are nitrate-neutral, after two rulings from the European Court of Justice. Will the Government work with me to look at suspending house building targets while affected councils work to find a solution to avoid being unfairly treated at potential appeals?

[Jake Berry]

We will happily work with my hon. Friend as she sets out. I believe that the housing Minister is already looking into this issue, and I am sure he will be in touch with her in due course.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

On Friday, I met a constituent who had been moved to temporary accommodation in Ilford, 17 miles from where her children attend school and where she works. The Government continue to place an unacceptable burden on councils, making them responsible for the lack of social housing while cutting their funding and refusing to increase their ability to build. Can the Secretary of State confirm that since 2010 the rise in homelessness has been caused by the cutting of council “Supporting People” budgets, the loss of more than 170,000 affordable council homes and a failure to stop soaring private rents?

[Jake Berry]

I do not accept there is the causal link to which the hon. Lady refers. Local authorities have an obligation, which they should discharge, to house homeless individuals and to provide good-quality accommodation. If she believes her local authority is failing to do that. perhaps she could provide details and we could look into that further.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State revoke permission for Milford on Sea 1, in accordance with my written request?

[Jake Berry]

As my right hon. Friend is aware, the Department sits in a quasi-judicial position in relation to all planning applications. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on the individual application to which he refers.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, but there is nothing to stop the right hon. Gentleman depositing a copy of his written request in the Library of the House, for its collective delectation.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

Does the Minister acknowledge that one unintended consequence of extending permitted development rights to commercial and industrial property is that a significant amount of housing is now being generated that is below accepted space and safety standards? What action is he taking to correct that?

[Jake Berry]

I do not accept that, but I will say that we are looking at PDRs more generally. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would, like me, celebrate the fact that this one policy alone has provided in excess of 40,000 houses for people to move into. We universally acknowledge, across this House, that we have a housing crisis and we need to build more homes, so I would have thought he welcomed that.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Many thousands of new homes are planned in Chelmsford, but pressure on our infrastructure holds back economic growth, and we especially need the second railway station for the city. Will my hon. Friend update us on the status of our housing infrastructure bid?

[Jake Berry]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic advocate for her constituents and really gets it: she understands that if we want to build the houses we need in this country, it is up to all of us, across this House, to get behind and support development. I know that she is in strong support of her housing infrastructure bid. The Department continues to review it and will give her the result of that review shortly.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the level of funding for local government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of extending the Bellwin scheme to include the exceptional costs of social care packages for vulnerable children.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

The Bellwin scheme can be used to compensate authorities for emergencies and disasters in their area. Children’s services funding is made available through the settlement, with flexibility for councils to target their spending according to the local needs. In the autumn Budget, we were pleased to announce an extra £410 million to address the pressures on social care.

[Luke Pollard]

Plymouth City Council’s children and social care budget is being sunk by a small number of exceptional care costs for some vulnerable young people, with 6:1 care ratios costing £40,000 a week. Will the Minister agree to meet Plymouth City Council’s Labour leader and Conservative leader of the opposition to look into how the Government can offer additional support for the rare but exceptional care costs for these vulnerable young people?

[Jake Berry]

I will of course meet the hon. Gentleman, the group leader and the council leader. I understand the hon. Gentleman has been active in this policy area, because he recently met my hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families and the leader of Plymouth City Council, Tudor Evans. I thought he might raise this issue today, so I checked, and I understand that the Minister he met previously is going to write to him shortly to update him on the progress he is making with his campaign.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Over the past two years in Sandwell, my local authority, the number of children in care has increased by a third. Government funding has not kept pace and, as a result, the Children’s Trust is faced with a deficit of £3.5 million. This is pretty representative, in common with local authorities up and down the country. What will the Minister do about it?

[Jake Berry]

The Government have their troubled families programme to tackle just the sorts of issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. No one in this House could be other than deeply concerned about the plight of our young people, particularly when they face the challenge of finding themselves in care, and that is why I am pleased that, since 2010, the amount the Government have spent on vulnerable children has increased by more than £1.5 billion.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

12. What plans the Government have to increase the supply of council housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Further to my last, if a decision could be expedited, the developer is now on the site, so any compensation will escalate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer to my previous question.

Shared Prosperity Fund

Jake Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Dan Jarvis]

I do agree. My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I will say more about that later.

When it comes to the funding criteria for the shared prosperity fund, it is important to understand that resources previously received support some of the most vulnerable in our society, through projects delivered by charities from Mencap and the Salvation Army through to local and voluntary community organisations, such as South Yorkshire Housing and Sheffield Futures, in my patch—organisations rooted in our communities, born out of need and surviving in some cases by the skin of their teeth. The resources also support investment in high-profile, multimillion-pound research and innovation schemes. They unlock town and city regeneration. They provide business support and finance in urban and rural areas. They deliver sustainable development projects that support the low-carbon agenda. Taken together, these local growth and European funds have been the glue that holds our communities together.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

I will be brief, as I know many others want to speak. Will the hon. Gentleman expand on that? Many of the areas he listed as the biggest beneficiaries of European structural funds were also areas that voted to leave the European Union. I was surprised to hear him say that we should have the same system, had the referendum result been different. Will he say why he thinks that people in many of those areas voted in such high numbers to leave?

[Dan Jarvis]

I do not think that that is an unreasonable question. We can have a debate if we like, although perhaps on another occasion, about why it was that people decided they wanted to leave the European Union. For many, it was because they felt that their local areas were not receiving the benefits that other, more affluent parts of the country were. This is a very good opportunity for the Government to seek to heal some of those divisions and invest in some of the communities that feel left behind. The United Kingdom shared prosperity fund must be designed and delivered so as to deliver on the aspirations of the communities such as the one that I am proud to represent. Those funds have previously done an incredibly important job in providing the glue that holds some of our communities together, creating new jobs, and in supporting disadvantaged and hard-to-reach communities that have often been neglected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this debate.

In the 1980s, when the Thatcher Government broke the industries on which our economy was built—steel and coal—we faced really tough times in South Yorkshire. We sunk to become one of the poorest regions in Europe, and because of that, the EU stepped in with funding. In reply to some of the comments that have been made, I say that that funding responded to what we asked for locally and funded programmes that were delivered by local organisations.

European structural funds were key to rebuilding our economy. Objective 1 funding provided £820 million to more than 250 organisations and 650 projects, from major projects such as the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, which has become a national flagship for industrial innovation, to small community initiatives that reskill people. The economy grew by 8.5%.

Shamefully, under Government policy since 2010, regional inequality has grown again. We are back where we were before: below 75% of the average gross domestic product of the EU and one of the poorest regions in Europe—formally designated a “less developed region” along with Tees Valley and Durham, Lincolnshire, west Wales and Cornwall, which have been mentioned.

On those regions, the February report from Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central mentioned, stated this for 2021 to 2027:

“All five of these regions would stand to receive EU support in excess of 500 euros per capita for the seven-year period.”

That would mean £605 million for South Yorkshire.

I was puzzled by the Minister’s intervention, as he seemed to suggest that because those areas voted leave they should not expect to receive that funding. That is not what they were promised in the referendum campaign, nor was it what they were promised subsequently.

[Jake Berry]

Nor was that what I said.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I start in the traditional way by congratulating the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on an excellent speech. As with so many things that we do together, with our shared passion to drive forward the economy of the northern powerhouse, there was very little I disagreed with in his speech, although there were a few things I will mention if I get the opportunity. Many Members asked similar questions, so before I deal with individual contributions I will address some of the more general points.

Let us be realistic about this debate: Members have picked me up on my saying that many areas that voted leave have been recipients of EU structural funds. One of my jobs in Government is administering many EU structural funds, and some Opposition Members may have done that job during the Labour Government. Those funds are hugely bureaucratic, and they do not target many of the things that we are desperate, across the Chamber, to drive in every constituency—including mine in east Lancashire, which is a deprived area in the north of England. Those funds are often inefficient. Although we have heard about some of the brilliant things they have done, such as supporting Mencap, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, they have been hugely inefficient in many places.

My hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) made interesting points about how some of those funds have been wasted in Cornwall. I suspect that may be part of the reason—although I would be the first to accept that the picture is very complicated—why 68% of the people who live in Barnsley and 60% of the people who live in Oldham voted to leave the European Union. We in this place have to address some of people’s deep frustrations about inequality, which traditionally have not been addressed or targeted by European structural funds.

We keep referring to European structural funds as European money. Let us be absolutely clear: this is British taxpayers’ money, which is given to the European Union and then, after a large percentage of it has been removed, returned to our country.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Berry]

I will not, sorry—there have been many interventions.

That is why, looking to the future, in our 2017 general election manifesto, my party—the Conservative party—said we would come forward with a new UK shared prosperity fund that would be designed to reduce inequalities between communities across the four nations of our United Kingdom and target productivity. That was reiterated by my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary in a written ministerial statement in July 2018 laying out some of the foundations of the UK shared prosperity fund.

The Government accept that tackling inequality is absolutely something we need to grip in this country. The hon. Member for Leigh (Jo Platt) mentioned that Leigh, which I know well—it is just down the road from my constituency—does not have a railway station. It is not the case that there was a railway station there that was closed by a Conservative Government; that is a sign of decades of under-investment in northern transport infrastructure by successive Governments. The UK shared prosperity fund should seek to challenge some of the inequalities that we see north, south, east and west across the United Kingdom.

[Stephen Kerr]

The Minister has mentioned inequalities several times. I want to be absolutely clear that the Government are committed to ensuring that the shared prosperity fund is led by need and, in respect of Scotland specifically, that the money is not Barnettised. It may be ring-fenced, but it must not be Barnettised.

[Jake Berry]

I am not able to give that commitment today, because we are going to have an active consultation.

[Stephen Kinnock]

When?

[Jake Berry]

If Members give me the opportunity to say when, I may try to provide an answer. One of the points we heard was that we must respect the devolution settlement across our United Kingdom. For me, as the Minister with responsibility for the northern powerhouse and devolution, that means respecting the devolution settlements that this Government have brought forward, by which I mean mayoral devolution in England, which now covers 48% of the north of England.

[Jim McMahon]

I understand why the Minister does not want to go down the cul-de-sac of the Barnett formula, but can he confirm that no region will be worse off than it is under the current programme?

[Jake Berry]

As the hon. Gentleman knows and I was just about to say, the quantum of the UK shared prosperity fund will be determined as part of the comprehensive spending review. That is the appropriate time for the Government to make commitments of the sort he seeks. However, he and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) are correct that the Government must come forward with their consultation—I am clear that this must happen—before the comprehensive spending review to enable areas to contribute to that consultation.

We have not been sitting on our hands, as people who have listened to the debate may think. We have already engaged with more than 500 stakeholders. We have had 25 official-level engagements across the country, including with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations. In addition, in my role as Minister for the northern powerhouse, I have engaged with mayors. I have talked to them specifically about how we can work together to provide evidence to the consultation that demonstrates that, as so many people have said, the impetus for investment of the UK shared prosperity fund should come from our regions rather than being directed out of Whitehall.

Having listened to contributions to the debate, I think everyone believes that it would be nice if that happened. The point is that by working with our metro Mayors, our local enterprise partnerships and authorities across England—that is certainly my role as English Minister for local growth—to create the evidence base, we can move beyond thinking that it would be nice to proving that it is how we will get the biggest return on investment. There is work ongoing in my Department, in advance of the consultation, to ensure that that hugely important argument is made, and won, when my dear chums in the Treasury are making decisions about how the money should be distributed following the consultation. I hope that answers some of the questions that Members asked. My response to the main question is that the consultation will start very shortly.

Let me move on to some of the specific points that were made. On public transport investment, Members may not have seen the most up-to-date figures, which are available on the Treasury website. They show that transport capital expenditure is higher per capita in the north of England than in London. People often talk about total capital expenditure across the north of England versus London. There are some parts of the north of England where very few people live, so it is much more realistic to talk about capital expenditure per capita, and it is higher per capita in the north of England.

Many colleagues talked about the weakness of Green Book calculations for making investment decisions, which I think is acknowledged across the House. That is why the Government came forward with a rebalancing formula in the industrial strategy. That formula looks at areas that are less developed, depending on how we define that, and at factoring future growth into Green Book calculations. Changes have been made recently to ensure that community benefit is also included in such calculations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) commented on the ring-fencing of coastal money. By the end of the current spending period, the Government will have invested £200 million directly in coastal communities through our coastal communities fund, which is about driving prosperity on our coasts. The UK shared prosperity fund must not be viewed on its own as the only support the Government give to drive regional growth. We have contributed £53 million to part of the exciting growth deal in the highlands and islands, which has resulted in things such as the north coast 500 route, which I hope to visit this summer, prospering.

[Drew Hendry]

rose—

[Jake Berry]

I will let the hon. Gentleman advise me about the best place to stay.

[Drew Hendry]

I am grateful to the Minister for raising that money for the Inverness city region deal. Will he go a step further and match 50:50 the commitment of the Scottish Government, who put considerably more money into that deal than the UK Government did?

[Jake Berry]

We will have to look at how much new money the Scottish Government have committed. Since we have talked repeatedly about devolution, particularly from a Scottish viewpoint, I note that the Smith commission agreement, which was signed by all parties in Edinburgh, contains a commitment by the Scottish Government to look at further devolution to local councils in Scotland. Devolution does not stop in Edinburgh, but I understand that no progress has been made on that.

I could go on, and I would like to, but I want to give the hon. Member for Barnsley Central the customary time to conclude the debate. I hope that colleagues do not doubt the Government’s commitment not just to devolution, but to regional growth. The UK shared prosperity fund, which we will consult fully on shortly, will continue that commitment to driving productivity and growth everywhere.

Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill

Jake Berry Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 13th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

This is probably the easiest summing-up that I have experienced so far in the Chamber. I thank the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron)—first, for turning up and, secondly, for making incisive comments about this short Bill.

As we know, this is paving legislation to enable the Government to deliver on their commitment to link the local authority business rate system to HMRC digital tax accounts so that businesses can manage their rates bill in one place alongside other taxes. As I think should be clear from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), we fully understand the Government’s wish to modernise the administration of business rates for the 21st century, and we fully understand that linking the local authority business rates system to HMRC digital accounts will make it easier, simpler and less burdensome for businesses to understand and pay their business rates. Nevertheless, as I am sure the Minister would acknowledge, there is some way to go before that aspiration can be achieved, and little of the detail of the new system is yet known.

The Bill provides HMRC with the ability to undertake the planning, consultation and testing that is needed to truly inform the design of the new service, and in their factsheet the Government say they will engage locally with local government and the business sector in developing detailed proposals and seeking views. It would therefore have been really useful today for the Government to have provided more detail on how they intend to go about this; we have simply no idea about the detail of how they will take this forward. There is a money resolution but absolutely no idea of the costs of digitising, and it would be helpful to hear something from the Minister about the costs that will be incurred.

The Minister made it clear that the measures in this Bill are to be compatible with the 100% business rate retention system the Government are aiming for, but we need to stop for a moment and explore this further, because there is a real risk under the 100% business rate system of dividing the country further between the haves and have-nots, the wealthiest areas and deprived areas, the south and the north. So can the Minister confirm that councils, particularly those affected by austerity, will not lose out under this system?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton said, since 2010 there has been a massive £16 billion-worth of cuts—a reduction of 60p in every pound for some councils—and the Centre for Cities found in January that the poorest areas have borne the brunt of council spending cuts. As a result of these cuts, councils have had to make £7 billion pounds of savings to adult social care, with less being spent on early intervention, libraries, youth services and so forth. In fact, these services have almost disappeared in some local authorities. So it might have been helpful for the Government to set out at the same time as this Bill how they see the whole of the local government finance system progressing in the future—for example, by having more information about the fair funding review and whether the Government will agree to independent scrutiny of the system and its implementation to test whether it actually is fair.

We know, too, that the current business rate system is broken, and we need firm proposals from the Government to ensure business rates are not an impediment to tackling regional inequalities in the way they are at the moment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

The hon. Lady says we should talk about that to enable us to have a full discussion here today. This might be slightly beyond the scope of today’s debate, but perhaps she will set out from the Dispatch Box Labour’s position for business rate reform in some detail because we have time to do that, and then I will comment on that in the context of today’s debate.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I thank the Minister for that intervention, because perhaps I was not clear: I was not suggesting that those measures necessarily needed to be in this Bill, but they do need to be set out so that we can place the Bill within the context of the Government’s wider proposals, because the Government—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

What a privilege it is to have this opportunity to close the debate today. I wish that it had been better attended, but it is great to have had a contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and some contributions from Labour Members. There was no one here from Change UK or TIG or whatever it is called; it obviously does not care about business rates.

In our debate today, it is important for us to stick rigidly to the scope of the Bill, which sets out how we will empower HMRC to look at digitisation and at how it can modernise and simplify the business rates system. Before the 2016 Budget, the Government held an extensive consultation and set out a commitment to enter on this process. It is a commitment that, following the passage of this Bill, HMRC will then, and only then, be able to progress the necessary design work.

Today’s Bill is an important step towards those reforms, and it will allow HMRC to start to explore some of the digital infrastructure that will link local authority business rates to digital tax accounts. This has been called for by businesses, and it is also being welcomed by them. Today’s Bill is simply the first important step, and it rightly paves the way for further discussions on how the process will proceed. All those discussions will require legislation, which will pass through the House and be subject to the usual scrutiny of the Opposition parties.

Turning to the impact of business rates on businesses, we have heard clarion calls in the press this morning and from the Opposition during this debate for looking into a more wholesale reform of business rates rather than simply digitising them, and it is impossible to have a debate about digitisation without giving cognisance to that point. Let us not forget, however, that we have committed to £13 billion-worth of savings to business over the next five years through the reforms that we have already made to business rates. We have switched the annual indexation from RPI to CPI, which will, over the lifetime of that commitment, save ratepayers and businesses up and down the country some £6 billion. That is £6 billion that will remain in all our local communities and economies for the constituents that we represent. We have also reformed small business rate relief, doubling it to £12,000 and making it automatic, meaning that 650,000 businesses now pay no business rates at all. We have responded to calls from businesses for more frequent revaluations, which will now happen every three years from 2020-21.

Turning to the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham about business rates and revaluation, it is of course the case, thinking about cash flow and the impact that business rates may have on a business, that it is possible for business rates to go down if rent has gone down and other factors have reduced during the period since the previous revaluation. The last revaluation actually led to a majority of businesses seeing no change or a reduction in their business rates. Over time, that should happen more often with more frequent revaluations from 2021.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I am curious, based on the Minister’s research, about how often businesses ask for a revaluation.

[Jake Berry]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. From speaking to business groups—I regularly consult with the Government’s Future High Streets Forum, and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has the Retail Sector Council—it is clear that they seek more frequent revaluations because that stops bill shocks. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows about bill shocks from people who have visited his advice surgery, and he also runs his own business—[Interruption.] Although I do not think that farms have a big business rates bill, because they do not pay any business rates.

[Bill Wiggin]

However, I get continual complaints about business rates from the landlord at the Moody Cow pub, which is very near my home.

[Jake Berry]

I am sure that those at the Moody Cow will be delighted not just with more frequent revaluations, but with when they can move on to the digitalisation of business rates, which we are discussing today.

People who make the clarion calls for the abolition of, reduction in or some other change to business rates will accept that they are already a key source of funding for local authorities, funding essential services, such as adult social care and children’s services. I note that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) did not take the opportunity in the wider context of this debate on business rates to elucidate the Labour party’s policies, but those who seek to reform business rates have an obligation to say how the revenue would be made up.

Many people who talk about business rates reform have at heart concerns about the health of our high streets, which was mentioned by the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople and which should worry us all. The Government need to find a way of ensuring that high streets continue to thrive as shopping patterns and behaviours change. I cannot remember a period of more rapid change in how we choose to shop. High streets must clearly transition from bricks-led retail to a bricks-and-clicks online and offline model, with experiential leisure at its heart. High street retailers will be delighted that business rates were slashed by a third in the most recent Budget for retailers with a rateable value of under £51,000, and that formed part of our wider high street package.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you are a fan of “Sex and the City”, but Sarah Jessica Parker recently bemused her Instagram followers on a recent visit to London, when she praised Timpson not just for its key-cutting service, but for its extensive selection of umbrellas, labelling the branch in High Street Kensington tube station as her new favourite shop. Timpson is of course a fine retailer, which is why I was delighted that Sir John Timpson worked so closely with the Government on his report on the future of the high street, business rates and retail. Leading directly from his report, the Government created the £675 million future high streets fund to support high streets and enable them to pay their business rates. Although all those reforms have been welcomed, people will continue to call for a more fundamental review of business rates, and the Government will, of course, continue to keep that under review.

The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) raised a lot of specific questions about how the digitisation of business rates will work. I am sorry to disappoint him, but I am unable to answer any of those questions today because the purpose of the Bill is to give HMRC the statutory power, which it currently does not have, to go away and work up that system. How the system will work cannot become clear until we have empowered HMRC, both on Second Reading and in Committee, to start work on it. That is why it is so important that we agree Second Reading this evening, and it is why it is so welcome that the Opposition Front-Bench team support the Bill.

This important Bill is just the start of our cross-party work to ensure that we create a business rates system fit for the future. Many people who run businesses will now be used to making the majority of their transactions online, whether it be paying their VAT bill, paying their utility bills or making sales and buying stock. If we truly want to create a modern tax system that is supportive and friendly to business, we must all work to create an online taxation system, including for business rates, that small businesses and large businesses alike will find workable and useful in driving productivity and efficiency in their business. That is why I have the pleasure of commending the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Non-domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Non-domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Sikhs: Contribution to the UK

Jake Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Edward. Being in the House of Commons, more often than not I am really proud of our role as advocates for our communities. It is brilliant that more than 20 Members of Parliament have come to this debate to make a contribution to celebrate Sikhs and Sikhs in British society. That is extraordinarily uplifting and a brilliant way of marking the almost conclusion of UK National Sikh Awareness and History Month. That event came out of a negative attack outside Parliament, and what a fantastic way it is of turning that negative, terrible thing that we all condemn into something positive.

In this debate, we have all come together to make a positive contribution about Sikhs in our society. I love the idea of having a month that is not only about history and what happened in the past, but about today and celebrating the hugely positive contribution that Sikhs make in Great Britain and around the world, as we have heard. We have had more than 20 contributions. I will do my best to respond to as many as possible of the points raised, while leaving the customary two minutes for the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). I congratulate her on securing this debate and pay tribute to her for the campaign she has run and all the work she has done.

My Department is in charge of communities in this country, and we work closely with communities across Great Britain to try to find ways to create that cohesion that the Opposition spokesperson just spoke about. I reiterate what has been said about the positive contribution that Sikhs have made to British society. Their vibrancy and selfless service are renowned. I have never visited a gurdwara, so I will have to do that. I do not have one in my constituency, but the huge contribution that gurdwaras are making to communities across Great Britain is absolutely fantastic.

[Eddie Hughes]

I have an excellent gurdwara in Willenhall in my constituency. The Minister would be welcome to come and visit it with me at any time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry]

Fantastic—I accept that invitation. I am sure my hon. Friend will also take that opportunity to lobby me on his high street competition bid, but I happily accept his invitation.

I am delighted that our Parliament has been made richer and more diverse. Having the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) speak today was one of the highlights, as he is the first turban-wearing Sikh in Parliament. We should celebrate his historic role in the story of our Parliament and our nation.

In addition, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) is the first female Sikh, which we should also celebrate. I was surprised when the election results came in and that news came over the wires. It says something about this place that we had not until that point had a female Sikh representative. The hon. Lady is doing a fantastic job representing not just her constituents but the Sikh community more widely.

I appreciate that it is a couple of weeks late, but I place on record my good wishes to all Sikhs who celebrated Vaisakhi recently with their family and friends. I think it is fantastic. The Prime Minister will host an event in Downing Street early next month to celebrate Vaisakhi with members of the Sikh community from across the UK.

[Mr McFadden]

I thank the Minister for his opening remarks, and I am sure that the Sikh community will be very grateful for his Vaisakhi greetings, but the Government missed an opportunity a couple of weeks ago, on the 100th Vaisakhi since the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, to respond to cross-party calls for an official Government apology. Was that the last word on the subject, or can we expect to hear more from the Government, perhaps at the Vaisakhi celebration that he mentioned?

[Jake Berry]

The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to prejudge what the Prime Minister may or may not say at that Vaisakhi celebration; I do not have any information about what is planned. All I would say is that the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 13 April 1919 is, as Members have described it repeatedly in this debate, a stain on the history of this country. It seems to me quite right that, 100 years on, people are calling on the Government to mark it, and to change what the Government have done. The Prime Minister recently made it clear that she deeply regrets what happened and the suffering caused, saying:

“The tragedy of Jallianwala Bagh in 1919 is a shameful scar on British Indian history.”—[Official Report, 10 April 2019; Vol. 658, c. 308.]

That is a direct quote from the Prime Minister, and of course the British high commissioner to India, Sir Dominic Asquith, laid a wreath on the Jallianwala Bagh centenary, expressing regret for what happened.

It is important to reflect on the past, and I do not know what will happen at the Vaisakhi celebration in Downing Street. I will pass on the comments from this debate to the Prime Minister, and more widely to those across Government. There may be an opportunity for others to raise the matter with the Prime Minister if they have the opportunity to do so in Parliament, at Prime Minister’s Question Time, on or around the time of that celebration in Downing Street.

I will move on to talk about how the Government engage with the Sikh community. We have heard about the hugely important contribution that the Sikh community makes to Britain. It is important that I put on record how the Government, particularly through my right hon. Friend Lord Bourne, the Minister for Faith, engages with the Sikh community and particularly Sikh umbrella groups. He often hosts interfaith roundtables with representatives from different faiths. Part of that has been to engage heavily with the Sikh community and its representatives.

Lord Bourne is currently seeking to refresh the groups of Sikh communities and umbrella bodies with which he meets. He is seeking particularly to expand those groups to ensure that more women have an opportunity to contribute and that more members of grassroots and community representative groups can attend them. Knowing the interest that there will be in today’s debate, I put out a call to the community more widely, particularly to women, to come forward and engage with the Government on how we can more actively support the Sikh community in the UK. We look forward to continuing our engagement with the Sikh community throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I hope that that can be part of an active engagement, with Members from across the House playing their full part.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

I really appreciate the commitment that the Minister is giving to carry on working closely with the Sikh community. Will he join all of us in campaigning to put pressure on the Prime Minister of this country to apologise on behalf of British communities? The Sikh community and the Indian community in general would appreciate that support.

[Jake Berry]

I read out the direct quote from the Prime Minister expressing regret in relation to that. Any further change in the Government’s official position would be a matter for the Foreign Office and for the Prime Minister, although I have committed to pass on Members’ comments, and I am sure that the Prime Minister and her team will read the Hansard of our debate.

A few very specific points have been raised, to which I will respond. First, the hon. Member for Slough asked whether I would meet him to discuss flights directly. I will of course, but I wonder whether it would be more appropriate for him to meet a Transport Minister. Perhaps he and I can have a quick conversation after the debate to work out who the appropriate Minister would be. In the absence of any other Minister better qualified to deal with the matter, I will of course meet him with the greatest of pleasure.

Comments have been made about the Sikh war memorial and the cross-party campaign for proper recognition of the extraordinary contribution that Sikhs made during both world wars—14 Victoria Crosses is a number that should humble us all. The Government are correctly supporting efforts to seek a permanent war memorial in London for that contribution. My Department has facilitated meetings with Westminster City Council and we have helped to persuade it, though I am sure it did not take too much persuasion, that there is a need for this war memorial. We support the planning application and have helped to identify potential sites. My Department is the ultimate arbiter of the planning application, so I cannot be drawn more widely on its success or failure, but we would all think it a wonderful outcome were such a memorial to be seen in London.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank Lord Bourne, his colleague Hilary Patel and the entire Department, because they have been very co-operative. I need reassurance from the Minister that we will get further gas under the pedal to get that memorial in Westminster sooner rather than later.

[Jake Berry]

I hope I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. The Government are fully behind the proposals for the war memorial. If there is more we can do to assist, we will certainly offer that help. I congratulate him for all the work he has done and the extraordinary way in which he has reinvigorated the campaign since he arrived in Parliament relatively recently. We will continue to work with Westminster City Council. There are negotiations with the Crown Estate, and if we can assist in that work or those negotiations in any way, we will do so. If, following this fantastic month of celebration and history, we can make some real progress, we can all be really proud of that. If the hon. Gentleman runs into any issues—of course, my colleague Lord Bourne would usually deal with them—he can contact me and I will personally take them up with the relevant people in my Department.

Issues relating to hate crime have been raised. In the remaining moments, it may be helpful for me to highlight the additional funding that the Home Secretary has made available for places of worship. I have visited each of the mosques in my constituency to talk about the availability of that funding. It is right that the Government support places of worship, so that religious people can meet, come together, pray together and practise their faith. I hope that colleagues will do what I have done, which is to visit diverse places of worship in their own constituencies, to ensure that worshippers are aware of that funding and of the fact that they can apply for proactive security around places of worship. I congratulate once again everyone who has taken part in this extraordinary and uplifting debate.

Lowestoft High Street: Revitalisation

Jake Berry Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for raising this important debate. I note that, only two weeks ago, he also raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions. He has raised it at length and with sagacity, and I hope to have the opportunity to respond.

The passion with which my hon. Friend has spoken about his town centre is just so exciting. In fact, the Conservative Members present here tonight and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) of the Democratic Unionist party are demonstrating that they, too, share that passion and desire for their high street. That passion is also shared by the Government. When I get up every single morning, I go to work thinking that my job in government is to oversee and drive forward the renaissance of our regions, and the high streets of our smaller towns and cities around the country are on my agenda.

I wish briefly to thank John Timpson, who carried out the Timpson review. I spoke to John last year and asked him whether he would lead the review. Initially, he said no, and the reason was that he had 2,200 shops to run. I then put it to him that it was quite a good idea to have someone who runs 2,200 shops to help the Government write their new high streets policy. I was delighted with his expert panel, and he went on to say yes. One thing that he recommended, which fed directly into the Budget, was the creation of the future high streets fund. My hon. Friend has repeatedly talked about the need for teamwork, and the prospectus for that fund explicitly sets out that the bids that succeed will have teamwork and business very much at their heart. Of course, it is not only my hon. Friend who has grabbed the opportunity of the future high streets fund—over £600 million—with gusto. More than 300 bids have been sent to the Government, and we are currently reviewing them in line with the independent bidding policy that we have put in place.

My hon. Friend talked very well about teamwork, which is hugely important. He also talked about locating public services on high streets. As well as thanking Sir John Timpson, I want to thank Bill Grimsey, who said in his Grimsey review, “Wouldn’t it be refreshing if we located our libraries, GP surgeries, childcare and town halls on our high streets to ensure that people visited?” I was therefore slightly concerned to hear my hon. Friend say that Lowestoft is moving some of those very same services away from the high street, when the big push of public policy is to place the public sector absolutely at the heart of the high street.

My hon. Friend raised the short-term challenges faced by Lowestoft, particularly his desire for free parking. In my own local authority area, we have the blessing of free parking on our high street. Parking charges should always be locally determined, but I would say to local authority leaders around the country that at the Trafford Centre—my constituents’ nearest major shopping centre—the parking is free and every parking space is full, but when I visit towns that charge for parking, it is clear that many parking spaces lie empty, just as the shops will eventually lie empty if people do not visit their high streets. I urge local authorities to bear in mind my hon. Friend’s comments, as well as my own.

My hon. Friend said that he is seeking UK Government action regarding a review of business rates. This is of course a question for my friends and colleagues in Her Majesty’s Treasury, and he may seek to engage them more heavily on that. On the town centre first policy, he would do well to build on the good practice set out by Bill Grimsey.

Finally, we heard a brilliant contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Business rates are devolved in their entirety, so he would need to take up his point locally in Northern Ireland. I celebrate and cheer on the involvement of Northern Ireland in the Great British High Street competition for the first time last year. We are running that competition again this year, and it will be bigger, better and have more applicants, many of whom I hope will come from Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jake Berry Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

5. What recent progress his Department has made on the allocation of funding to coastal communities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

On 23 March we announced 70 grants, worth £36 million, from our coastal communities fund and coastal revival fund. This will mean that, by 2020, we will have invested over £200 million in coastal communities across England.

[Mrs Murray]

Flooding is a real threat to our coastal communities. Will my hon. Friend ensure that construction of new infrastructure in Looe is fully funded to maintain the town’s economic viability and future prosperity?

[Jake Berry]

First, I take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on her recent wedding to Bob.

The Government are aware of the impact of tidal flooding in Looe. The Environment Agency and Cornwall Council are working on an integrated flood defence scheme as part of the £20 million wider regeneration of the area.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

The recent House of Lords Select Committee report on the funding of coastal communities shows that our coastal towns and communities are hardest hit by austerity. Will the Minister take the report’s recommendations seriously and look at how we can redistribute wealth and power from the centre and into coastal communities, especially those in the far south-west such as Plymouth?

[Jake Berry]

I saw the Select Committee’s report with interest—in fact, I had the privilege of giving evidence to the Select Committee—and it well identifies the fact that coastal communities across the country face shared challenges. That is, of course, why we have our coastal communities fund, which is looking at individual projects that can drive jobs, growth and prosperity in coastal communities, including those of Plymouth.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Cleethorpes is benefiting considerably from the coastal communities fund and has great potential for regeneration through the Greater Grimsby town deal. Can the Minister give my constituents an assurance that he will continue to look generously towards Cleethorpes?

[Jake Berry]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, who is a redoubtable campaigner for his constituency. No Question Time passes without him talking about Cleethorpes, and I can say that, when considering investment in our coastal communities, I always have the biggest fish and chip shop in Britain at the forefront of my mind.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, but we must not forget Bexhill and Battle either.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is always sunny on the south coast.

May I ask the Minister to consider the fact that, when people retire, they tend to move to coastal communities, which impacts on our social care and council tax bills? Will he consider long-term funding that properly looks at the age range in coastal communities? And will he also look at the radical reform of social care to make sure we have social care insurance, which would bring more money into the system?

[Jake Berry]

I recently visited Bexhill and Battle for a brief jaunt to the seaside with my family, so I know my hon. Friend’s constituency well. We have recently confirmed that we will invest an additional £650 million in support and care in communities such as Bexhill and Battle, and I hope he will also look at the Government’s new stronger towns fund, which may be able to support his area.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to support the building of social housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to support parish councils.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

We are absolutely committed to giving parish councils the tools they need to shape their communities’ future. Neighbourhood plans are giving them a real say in the future of the areas that they represent. Through the general power of competency, we have made it easier than ever for them to work on behalf of their communities. We are also making it easier for people to petition to create a local parish council if they so desire.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Hankelow parish council in my constituency is facing developers seeking to avoid their responsibility to build affordable homes on the only brownfield site in the village. What powers can be given to parish councils to enable them to ensure that affordable housing development is met?

[Jake Berry]

My hon. Friend is an exceptional champion of the people of Eddisbury and has been extremely active on this very local issue. Local planning authorities must consult parish councils before deciding on an application. Parish councils can offer important insights, and are closely connected with the community. We have revised our approach to viability in national policy to strengthen that position.

[Mr Speaker]

I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) will have the Minister’s tribute framed and displayed in an appropriate place in her home, for she is not merely a champion but an exceptional champion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

New developments have to meet the needs of local people, not developers. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the plans for York Central, which fail on transport, housing and climate credentials?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

Having visited the York Central site, I know how key it is in delivering the northern powerhouse. That is why it is with the greatest pleasure that I will meet the hon. Lady.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

T7. The south-west has fantastic economic potential and further ambitions for growth. Does the Minister recognise that the great south west is on a par with the northern powerhouse? Will he ensure we receive the same high-profile support from his Department?

[Jake Berry]

The application from my hon. Friend to be the high-profile supporter of the new south-western powerhouse is now complete. I look forward to working with her to ensure we provide support for her ambitions and those of the people she represents.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Online agent Rightmove continues to allow discrimination against low earners, single parents and the disabled by declaring “No DSS” on its portals. Will the Minister please take action to end this potentially unlawful practice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Do the Government consider it fair and reasonable for devolved local authority areas to charge people living outside those areas more for exactly the same services?

[Jake Berry]

No, and if the hon. Gentleman writes and gives me details I will look into that.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Citizens Advice reports that local authority debt collection practices are a growing factor in those approaching it seeking help on problem debt. What can the Minister do to roll out best practice to local authorities?

Housing, Communities and Local Government

Jake Berry Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from Housing, Communities and Local Government questions on 4 March 2019:

[Jake Berry]

The Government have been clear that online taxation in retail needs to be done as part of an international agreement, but we have also been clear that, if we cannot get such an agreement, we will come forward with our own 2% tax on online retail to ensure that we can continue, as we did in the last Budget, to give relief to those retailing on our high streets.

[Official Report, 4 March 2019, Vol. 655, c. 648.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry):

An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).

The correct information should have been:

[Jake Berry]

The Government have been clear that online taxation of businesses that derive value from user participation in retail needs to be done as part of an international agreement, but we have also been clear that, if we cannot get such an agreement, we will come forward with our own 2% tax on online retail to ensure that we can continue, as we did in the last Budget, to give relief to those retailing on our high streets.

New Ferry Regeneration

Jake Berry Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate. I want to discuss a matter that is very important to me, my constituents and all those in Merseyside, and that is the situation in New Ferry.

New Ferry is a small town that I represent, and it also happens to be the place where I live and where my office is. It is very important to all my constituents. I am glad to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), has visited New Ferry, which we were grateful for. Nearly two years ago the town suffered a most terrible explosion.

At just after 9 o’clock on a Saturday evening on 25 March, there was a huge blast. This is an ongoing matter before the courts, so I will not discuss the specifics of the explosion, but I want to say a few words about New Ferry as a place. The Minister knows New Ferry, as he has visited it, but many others will not be aware of what it is like. I want to talk about the response to that explosion, the situation we are now in and the rebuilding of New Ferry, and ask the Minister some questions.

New Ferry is a small town on the Wirral peninsula in Merseyside. It is just south of Birkenhead. For many years, it was a place where ferries stopped, hence its name; long ago, the Mersey ferries stopped there. It was a town where people would go shopping. There used to be a number of hotels and other historic buildings, but over time, the ferries ceased calling there, and it just became a place where people would go to shop. This will be a familiar story. As with lots of our high streets up and down the country, the change in New Ferry has been significant, particularly over the past 20 years. The onset of out-of-town shopping and then the impact of the internet has hit New Ferry just as it has hit many other places.

Before the blast two years ago, we already had a big challenge in New Ferry. We had used the coalition Government’s initiative of having a town team to try to get more shops into New Ferry and more events happening that would bring people into the town centre. Local people put lots of effort into that. We had arts and cultural events in New Ferry, but nothing really stuck because the quality of many buildings was very poor, as it is now. It was hard to get small businesses to use those buildings and bring them back to life.

The place was crying out for investment, and then two years ago we had the terrible event of the huge explosion. The community was struggling with the fact that the place they loved and had grown up in was no longer somewhere they could go shopping to buy fruit and veg or a loaf of bread. Lots of businesses had closed down already. Major supermarkets had left, and we had seen the last bank in the town close.

I had already been campaigning for regeneration when the blast happened. As I said, I am not able to talk about the details because of the legal situation. However, I want to put this on the record. As the Minister knows, the blast was extraordinarily traumatic for the area. It had a big impact on people. One of the frustrations that people in New Ferry feel is that although, in the aftermath of the blast, they were listened to and people saw the pain that had been caused, the response has been too little and too slow. I turn now to that response.

After the blast, there was a question about whether Wirral Council would apply for the Bellwin scheme, but it was advised not to apply for funding from that scheme because the response required at that time did not hit the £500,000 threshold. There is a problem because, as I understand it, the rules of the scheme stipulate that the assessment of funds needed under the scheme had to be completed within four weeks. However, the site was completely unsafe, and it remained out of bounds for reasons of investigation for six weeks. In my opinion, the council was not properly in control of the scene, and it was not able to do what it would have needed to do under the Bellwin scheme. That was a problem, and it has been quite difficult to find out more about whether there are any exemptions under the scheme, or how this could be reopened.

I was glad that, in September 2018, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government received a delegation from New Ferry in his office here, and he listened carefully to what my constituents said. Unfortunately, in the letter he wrote to us after that meeting, he said that no change in the Government’s approach would be forthcoming, and that they were still not prepared to look again at the issue of the Bellwin scheme. That is really hard for my constituents to take. Given the level of cuts to Wirral Council, the situation that New Ferry was already in and the fact that it is really struggling, the idea that Wirral council tax payers should just pick up the entirety of the bill for what happened in New Ferry, through no fault of the people there, is one that my constituents find very difficult to understand. I am sure that the Minister will wish to comment on that.

I want to talk about the rebuilding of New Ferry. As I have said, the place needed regeneration long before the blast. It was crying out for it. I had spent hours and hours in meetings with potential developers—such as the Co-op supermarket, which owns one of the buildings—desperately trying to say to people that this could be a great place if they would be prepared to invest in it. Unfortunately, there has never been significant regeneration capital from the Government for New Ferry, and that has held the place back because commercial organisations must feel that it is too big a risk. It has always needed the state to step in, and that has never happened. It is happening now in a small way, but my complaint is that it is not being done quickly enough and we really need to see progress, because people in New Ferry are losing faith in that ever happening.

This is the situation as it is today. Homes England, which the Government charge with regeneration, has now spent about £100,000 on a plan and a study of how the rebuild should happen, but that means that we are still—two years on—only in the planning stage. I think most people, and certainly most people in Merseyside who drive through New Ferry, think it is actually a bit ridiculous that we have not been able to move this on faster. I really want to say to the Minister: this has got to happen more quickly.

The consultation options are out there, and people are talking about them. I would like to support an option that has been put forward by traders and residents that would see more rejuvenation of the town centre. They want better parking arrangements, which will help with the footfall, and units of different sizes, so that we are not just reliant on big business coming in to rescue New Ferry, but can have small and developing businesses too, and I support that.

The city region is also trying to step in and help. Applications have been made to the town centre fund from the Liverpool city region. That is a really positive option that could help us with the town centre and make sure that we still keep a commercial heart, not just become a dormitory area. I think I know what the Minister is going to say, which is that we should rely on what the Liverpool city region is doing. I know that the Minister supports devolution, as I do, and that is fine.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

I support Liverpool too.

[Alison McGovern]

We both support Liverpool, and we both support devolution—but it is not really a good enough answer. When, through no fault of its own, Salisbury experienced terrible events that damaged its prosperity and possibilities, the Government found £2.5 million to assist it. I and my constituents, and indeed the public at large, do not understand why such support was not found for New Ferry. Put simply, if such resources could be allocated to New Ferry, rather than needing permanently to be bid for, asked for, or cobbled together from different sources, we could get that regeneration and rebuild under way. That is why it is slow. The Government have all the resources of the Treasury, and they could help people in New Ferry today.

I am grateful that the Minister came to meet people, and that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government met my constituents, but that is not enough because we need actions, not just people listening. Will the Minister answer a simple question today? Can he commit capital, so that when we have finished the consultation on what the rebuild will look like, we will know that those plans will happen, and that we will not be stuck in the permanent state that I—and before me my predecessor, Ben Chapman—have been stuck in, with constant bidding rounds where money never comes forward? The plans are there, but they never seem to be realised to allow people to see the prospects of our town changing. That is what people want. They do not want any more plans and consultations; they want action.

In conclusion, across the road from my office in New Ferry is a block of derelict shops. Every time I walk to my office, I walk past those shops and I think about the impotence of politics, and about the lack of care and attention for the ordinary considerations of British people. The Minister knows this already, but I repeat that if he thinks I will ignore the dereliction and lack of care and attention in the town of New Ferry, or that I will stop coming to the House to badger the Government and ask them to do more, and to request action that is quicker and has more effect, he is wrong. Nobody in New Ferry will ever give up on the place that we love and care about. I will never give up asking the Minister, so he might as well just say yes today.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) has made an impassioned plea on behalf of her constituents, and I pay tribute to her for her tenacity and for the regularity with which she has brought this important issue to the House. Her constituents should be proud of the service that she offers as a constituency Member of Parliament who cares passionately about the community she represents.

As the hon. Lady said, I visited New Ferry a couple of months after the initial explosion, and nobody who has been there—the hon. Lady visits every week when she walks to her office—could be anything other than moved by the devastation caused by the explosion. She is right to say that today we should not get into the details of how that explosion may have happened. There will, I hope, be a day of reckoning regarding the cause of the explosion, but it will not be today.

Immediately after the event the Government, as with all such incidents, deployed one of our liaison teams—we call it a RED team, as it covers resilience, emergencies and disasters—to work with Wirral Council and consider how to support it. The hon. Lady mentioned a good meeting with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and residents and business owners from her area. She says that she will not ignore any dereliction of duty and that she will keep on fighting. I am sure that after that meeting she, like me, went away and reflected on the fact that in some areas Wirral Council had failed to react correctly and speedily enough on behalf of its constituents. It had a hardship fund at the time that could have been accessed, but it was not. I know a hardship fund has now been made available. At the time of the explosion, despite what the hon. Lady says about local authorities up and down the country being hard pushed in terms of public finances—and I accept that Wirral Council is one of them—the council did have some £68 million in unallocated reserves.

As well as pushing me on the Government’s response, I hope that the hon. Lady will continue to push Wirral Council. In the very moving meeting we held with the Secretary of State, it was absolutely clear that people felt that the initial response—what people often talk about immediately after such disasters—had simply not been good enough from Wirral Council, despite the support from the Government and the resilience and emergency division. There may be lessons for the Government to learn—I will come on to some of the ways in which we will continue to support the people of New Ferry—but there are also lessons for the local authority to learn. I will leave my remarks there, but if the hon. Lady would like to talk to me about that after this debate, I will happily do so privately.

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct to say that the regeneration of the site has been slower than any of us would have hoped for. Following my visit in June 2017, I immediately asked Homes England to make £100,000 available to work jointly with the local authority on a regeneration plan. Those plans, by their very nature, are complicated and take some time to work up. There was, however, a significant delay on that plan coming back to Government with any request for support.

I welcome the work that has been undertaken. There has been an opportunity for local residents to ensure that their views are heard. The council, in conjunction with Homes England, is now evaluating the comments from the feedback sessions that were held in New Ferry. Work is ongoing to find a preferred residential mix-use development for New Ferry. I recognise what the hon. Lady says about the challenge facing high streets up and down the country. She makes the point extremely well that any regeneration in New Ferry must be of that mixed residential and commercial use for it to continue to be sustainable. In parallel to that, Wirral Council is planning to invest £1.3 million to start the land assembly of the New Ferry site, which will enable that exciting regeneration to take place.

On Government support, the hon. Lady has campaigned tirelessly to support the residents and businesses affected. She talks about the Salisbury nerve agent attack, an appalling national and international incident that saw the murder and attempted murder of people by foreign actors on British soil, and the support the Government made available to the people of the city of Salisbury. Such support is normally dealt with through a Bellwin scheme. The hon. Lady correctly says that the Bellwin scheme is for expenditure by Wirral Council, which is currently in excess of £495,000. At the time the discussions were taking place, Wirral Council estimated that it had spent only £400,000.

I would point out that following the explosion—the hon. Lady is absolutely correct—the site was in the hands of Merseyside police, who were, quite correctly, gathering evidence about any criminal acts that may or may not have happened on that site as part of the explosion. It was handed back over to Wirral Council on 6 April. Although there was some delay in the council gaining control of the site, there was ample time and it was well within the Bellwin scheme qualifying period. It may have been apparent to the local authority at the time that it would not be successful in putting forward a claim, but it is simply not correct to say that it did not get control of the site within the claim period. I understand that Wirral Council has agreed to set aside funding for individual residents and business owners who have suffered considerable financial hardship in the period following the explosion, and I welcome that.

I shall now turn to what help the Government can, and I hope will, provide to the residents of New Ferry. I understand that a bid of some £5 million has been made to the Mayor of Liverpool City Region’s town centre fund. That is, of course, Government money that is part of the gain share that gets paid to the city. I hope that Steve Rotheram, former Member of this House and Mayor of Liverpool City Region, will look with favour upon the application along the lines of the plan that has jointly been worked up with the Homes and Communities Agency.

[Alison McGovern]

The Minister describes the city region funding as “Government money”. In some sense, we can describe anything that comes from the Treasury as Government money, but if New Ferry is not helped directly by the Government, that city region development money that was there for the purposes of rebalancing our economy is effectively doing the work that the Government should be doing in this shocking and terrible event. It is simply not acceptable to the people of New Ferry that they should have to bid to a fund that is there for general economic development.

[Jake Berry]

For a start, I am sure that the hon. Lady would agree that there is actually no such thing as Government money. It all belongs to all of us as taxpayers. I gently point out—I did so in my opening remarks, and I do not want to get in a war of words about this—that at the time of the explosion, Wirral Council had tens of millions of pounds in reserves, which was money paid in by Wirral taxpayers over a period. In her speech, the hon. Lady, who has been in Parliament since 2010—we came in together—talked about the need for regeneration of this site under her predecessor’s term as the Member of Parliament. She talked about how in her entire time in Parliament—nine years in total—she has been campaigning for the redevelopment of this site. Although, as she points out, the explosion has taken something from being “important” to “urgent”—and that is absolutely correct—it is an area that would, I hope, have been the recipient of regeneration funds from the Liverpool city region in any event. However, I accept that this explosion has taken it from being important to urgent. I do not think that anyone could deny that.

More widely, there is the future high streets fund, which was announced at the last Budget. It is open for bids of exactly this type, looking at a wider high street and town regeneration plan. The plan is already in existence. The expression of interest for the future high streets fund has to be in by 22 March. The hon. Lady said, I think, “bid, bid and bid again”. With the future high streets fund, we have ensured that the expression of interest round is very light touch. I am aware of the bidding fatigue in local authorities—in fact, it affects my authority in Lancashire—so we have tried to ensure that the first round of bidding for the future high streets fund is at a very low bar to enable local authorities to access it without unnecessary expense. Working up that bid to the second phase—if areas are successful in that competitive fund—is revenue-funded, so the Government will pay for and support the bid, working it up with the local authority.

I gently mention to the hon. Lady that I hope that, using her influence, she may be able to persuade Wirral Council to bring New Ferry forward as its preferred bidder for the future high streets fund. As she rightly says, it has made significant progress with the Homes and Communities Agency, looking at wider regeneration. In that fund, there is the possibility of fast-track funding for areas that already have a plan to deliver for their area. The intention is that the capital element of the fund could be spent this year, so if New Ferry were successful, either by being fast-tracked or by getting into the second round, it would mean that support could be available from central Government this year as part of our desire to invest in our high streets up and down the country and see wider regeneration.

Finally I shall turn to the public support available from central Government. In addition to the Mayor’s fund and the future high streets fund, this week we announced the stronger towns fund, which involves a wider regeneration package that could encompass New Ferry, Port Sunlight and other areas and looks at how, on a town deal basis, areas could pull together a wider bid to Government. That is more long term and may not lend itself as well to this redevelopment, which, as the hon. Lady said, has gone from important to urgent, but it is available. In terms of Government support, however, the future high streets fund, which is a competitive fund, albeit with a light-touch bidding scenario, is probably the way to go.

Finally, I want to talk about the importance of devolution. The Liverpool city region, which I know well, having been born and brought up in the city of Liverpool, is really changing the conversation around politics. The hon. Lady is an exemplar of that. She, quite rightly, is fighting like hell for her constituents. I have huge admiration for it. It is evident in the way she brings this debate back to the House of Commons and has meetings with the Secretary of State. It is clear that she will never ever give up, as she says.

I think that devolution is part of that and I am very pleased to be part of a Government who have taken real power, money and influence and returned it to the people of Merseyside. I hope that with the Mayor’s gain share fund and the opportunities for redevelopment it will also deliver for the people of New Ferry, who I know the hon. Lady will continue to work for.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2019

Jake Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2019.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. The draft order having been before the House for some period—it was laid on 30 January—I do not intend to make any further remarks, except that I commend it to the Committee.