Domestic Abuse

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

Mr Speaker, I echo your words in relation to Tessa Jowell’s contribution in this place and the debate that we were privileged to be part of just a year ago. It is good to see the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) in her place. We are in different places now, but the debate was a shared endeavour, and we were both privileged to be part of that special debate, when Tessa was here, and to champion the cause so well and so effectively.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on a new sustainable approach to delivering support for victims of domestic abuse and their children in accommodation-based services across England.

Domestic abuse is a devastating crime experienced by more than 2 million adults a year, with women twice as likely to be victims. That is completely unacceptable, and we have much more to do if we are to reach a point where no family lives with the threat of domestic abuse. Domestic abuse can take many forms and affects the young and old, male and female, but whoever the victim is, those fleeing abuse must have somewhere safe to go.

Just last year we announced £22 million to provide over 2,200 new beds in refuges and other safe accommodation, supporting more than 25,000 survivors with a safe space to rebuild their lives, but I know much more must be done to ensure a consistent approach across the country and to ensure that survivors have a safer future.

At the 2017 general election, the Prime Minister made a manifesto commitment to review funding for refuges. The violence against women and girls strategy for 2016 to 2020 set out our ambition to provide support for refuges and other accommodation-based services, helping local areas to ensure that no victim is turned away from the support they require at the time of need.

We also committed to reviewing the locally led approach to commissioning domestic abuse services. To meet that commitment, in January 2018 we began a full review of the funding and commissioning of domestic abuse services in England. We have worked closely with sector partners, drawing on their data, expertise and knowledge. This review complements wider Government work on tackling this devastating crime and supporting victims, including our new draft Domestic Abuse Bill.

Through the course of the review we have engaged with specialist domestic abuse service providers and their representative bodies, local authorities, police and crime commissioners and other organisations that support victims, to understand fully the challenges in commissioning and delivering these vital services and the positive features of the current system. We are grateful for their engagement and extensive input into our work.

We know there are dedicated professionals delivering support to victims and their children in accommodation-based services across England. This support helps victims move from danger and abuse to safety and independence, and their children to regain their childhoods. That includes the vital work of service managers and support staff, counsellors, outreach workers and play therapists, and I pay tribute to their work.

However, we also know that we need to do more to ensure that all victims and their children can access support at the right time, underpinned by a sustainable approach to provision. We understand that victims and their children will live in a variety of different forms of safe accommodation and will need support to stay safe and rebuild their lives in all of them. That includes outreach support to remain safe in properties with enhanced security measures, in emergency or temporary accommodation, in dispersed accommodation and in refuges.

Although refuges play a critical role in supporting victims at high risk of serious harm, we have deliberately kept our definition of accommodation-based services wide to include the full range of safe accommodation in which victims and their children may require support. That will help local areas to meet the support needs of diverse groups of victims and their children, and those at lower and medium risk, to prevent their needs from escalating.

Having reviewed the current system and listened to the views of expert stakeholders, today I am proposing new local authority-led arrangements for delivering support to victims of domestic abuse and their children in accommodation-based services in England. The proposals will place a new statutory duty on upper-tier local authorities—county councils, metropolitan and unitary authorities, and the Greater London Authority—to convene a local partnership board for domestic abuse accommodation support services.

The local partnership boards should include representation from police and crime commissioners, health bodies, children’s services and housing providers, along with specialist domestic abuse service providers. The boards will be required to assess need for domestic abuse services; develop domestic abuse strategies; commission services to meet the support needs of victims and their children; and report progress to my Department.

In two-tier areas, lower-tier local authorities—city, district and borough councils and, in this instance, London boroughs—will have a significant role to play in contributing to needs assessments, strategy development, service commissioning and reporting on progress. Those areas will be subject to a statutory duty to co-operate with the local partnership board.

To support local authorities and local partnership boards to meet these new requirements, I am proposing that we should produce new statutory guidance, making our expectations clear. This new approach will be backed by funding from the Government to ensure that services are put on a sustainable, long-term footing; it will be determined through the forthcoming spending review and informed by the consultation.

I want to safeguard provision of support; to clarify expectations of governance and accountability; to ensure needs assessments are undertaken; and to enhance our understanding of service provision across England, through monitoring and reporting. I also want to ensure that the diverse needs of all victims and their children are met, including those with protected characteristics. This is part of a wider Government drive to tackle domestic abuse and end this pernicious crime for good. Our Domestic Abuse Bill, published in January, is the most comprehensive package ever to tackle domestic abuse. We have also brought in a new offence to capture coercive and controlling behaviour, and new domestic abuse protection orders will allow the police and courts to intervene earlier. It is our duty to ensure that victims and survivors can receive help by providing the support they need to transform their lives and move to safety and independence.

Through this consultation, I want to hear views on our proposals from victims and survivors, service providers, local authorities, housing providers and other public agencies, as well as professionals who support victims and children every day. I believe that this announcement today will provide much-needed help to ensure that more victims and their families better overcome their experiences, and move on to live full and independent lives. The consultation will run from today until 2 August. A copy of the consultation document will be placed in the House Library, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Today’s announcement is, of course, welcome. It is a victory for the campaigners who have fought for 10 years for a legal duty to support survivors of domestic violence. It is a victory for charities such as Women’s Aid; for campaigners such as the new Victims’ Commissioner, Vera Baird; and for Members of this House such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). They deserve huge credit, as do many other Members in this House, on both sides, who have fought for this change. This is a victory for the hard work of current and former Front-Bench colleagues, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn). Most importantly, it is a victory for survivors of domestic abuse, who show such unimaginable strength.

There are, however, questions still to answer, which will determine whether this policy is going to work. First and most importantly, unless we provide the funding to make it work, we are setting local authorities up to fail. The Secretary of State has estimated today that the new legal duty could cost £90 million. Given that councils in England are facing an overall funding gap of £8 billion by 2025 and that Home Office figures estimate that domestic abuse costs the economy £66 billion in just one year, does the Secretary of State really think that that funding will be enough?

The Local Government Association has today raised concerns that the policy is focused exclusively on the crisis-point intervention, rather than early intervention; we need to ensure that the funding does not drain from these equally important areas to pay for this policy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the funding will be ring-fenced? We do not know when the spending review will be; we may not know the outcome of the spending review until this time next year. Why is the Secretary of State risking this policy being kicked into the long grass by hooking it to the spending review? When will we know how much money there will be to spend?

We know that there are issues with support provided to victims only in their local area, despite two thirds of women fleeing to a refuge further afield. Can the Secretary of State confirm that women will be supported wherever they are from? The same must apply in respect of women with no recourse to public funds and those with complex needs, as such women struggle to access beds and are overrepresented among women murdered. Specialised support services such as those for black, Asian and minority ethnic women and for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are hugely important but have suffered significant cuts, with one expert recently saying that we have lost 50% of all specialist BAME refuge services. It is unclear how these proposals will impact specialist services, so can the Secretary of State provide some reassurance?

The background to this announcement is a crisis in support for victims of domestic abuse and deep cuts to investment in genuinely affordable homes. The Government are responding to a crisis that their own policies have partly created. A 60% cut in Government funding for local authorities between 2010 and 2020 has stretched our councils to the limit. Services have been cut back to the legal minimum and core services have deteriorated in quality. Women’s Aid has found that many organisations are running an area of their services without dedicated funding from local authorities, and some receive no support from local authorities at all. That has led to a fifth of refuges closing since 2010, and more than 150 women a day are now being turned away from refuges.

The lack of genuinely affordable housing has left domestic violence victims facing homelessness and squalid housing. This is because last year the number of homes built for social rent fell to fewer than 6,500, compared with almost 40,000 in 2010. The Government’s record on this issue is not good. Attempts to dismantle the funding stream for refuges through housing benefit were shelved last year only after tireless campaigning from women’s organisations.

Although many men are victims of domestic abuse, the majority are women, and women are disproportionately affected by austerity, bearing the brunt of cuts in support services. Ten years of austerity have had a savage impact on BAME women and single mothers in particular. By 2020, the income of single mothers will have fallen by 18%, and black and Asian households will see average drops in living standards of 19.2% and 20% respectively, according to analysis by Amnesty International.

The Prime Minister said today:

“Whoever you are, wherever you live and whatever the abuse you face, you will have access to the services you need to be safe.”

That is a commitment that cannot be made lightly. There is a now a clear moral duty on the Government to see this through—not just for the sake of keeping the promises that have been made, and not just for the sake of the campaigners and survivors who have pushed for this change for years, but for the sake of those people who are trapped right now in abusive relationships. If we promise them safety and do not deliver it, we will not deserve forgiveness. We welcome today’s announcement, but we will hold the Government’s feet to the fire until this commitment becomes a reality.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and her support for today’s announcement. I agree with her on that sense of moral duty—that sense of moral purpose—to those who are in abusive relationships that underlines all this work. She will know the figure that is used: some 2 million people each year suffer some form of domestic abuse. That is unacceptable and intolerable, and it is right that we do much more, which is why the Prime Minister made her comments today. Indeed, she has an enduring commitment to making a difference in this important policy area.

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to all those who have campaigned on this issue, not only across the House but throughout the country. So many voluntary organisations—those very much at the frontline—have really made the difference and I pay tribute to their work, as well as to the quiet, dignified determination of so many survivors of domestic abuse, who have really underlined that sense of why we need to do more.

The hon. Lady highlighted the issue of funding for local government and the interrelationship with the spending review. We have indicated that there will be a spending review later this year because the current spending review period ends at the end of this financial year. It is therefore right that we look at the funding position in that context but, as I have underlined, it is a question of ensuring that local government receives the appropriate financial support, given that a new and additional requirement is being placed on local government as a consequence of this proposal. That is why I said what I did about the need to ensure that this issue is properly addressed through the spending review and that it is informed by the consultation itself.

In the media this morning, I gave some estimates of what we anticipate the broad annual cost may be—a round figure of around £90 million is our current estimate—but I want that to be informed by the consultation and, indeed, to be taken into the spending review, so that we can get the right level of support. That sense of co-operation between areas is also within the duty that we anticipate, by which I mean not looking at this in isolation. The hon. Lady makes a very good and important point about being able to support people from wherever they come. Indeed, that is, in part, what this variability of service, which we want to address, is all about, and what the statutory duty is very firmly intended to underpin.

As I said in my statement, we announced £22 million of additional support for the sector last November. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), who has had to leave her place on the Front Bench to attend a debate in Westminster Hall, for her incredible support and leadership in this regard. Obviously, local authorities are seeing a real-terms increase in spending power over this coming year.

I know that we need to do more. We need to ensure that specialist support reflects the protected characteristics —the needs of BAME, LGBT and other communities. There is a need to recognise some of the different types of outreach services that will be needed to give effect to that. The hon. Lady sets that challenge, and I respect and acknowledge her intent to ensure that this Government are properly scrutinised and challenged to see that we follow through. I know that that view is shared across Government. Colleagues with different responsibilities are determined to work together to make that difference.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I join Women’s Aid and Safelives in welcoming today’s announcement. I also pay tribute to the absolutely inspirational Maggie Parks from Women’s Centre Cornwall and thank the refuges in Truro that provide such needed refuge for both men and women. This very important announcement today builds on a landmark domestic violence Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is just as important to commission high-quality services for victims and their children living in their own homes as it is for those living in refuges? Alongside that, we must make sure that there is access to specially trained and qualified mental health professionals.

[James Brokenshire]

I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend. I know that, in some of her previous ministerial work, she was very passionate in advocating and supporting greater focus on this matter and ensuring that some of these issues in relation to the criminal justice system were followed through. I pay tribute to Maggie Parks and the Women’s Centre Cornwall to which she refers. Yes, of course, the Domestic Abuse Bill will be really important. The commissioning of services is absolutely critical. She makes the right point, which others have made too, that it is important that we get the support right in refuges, but it goes much wider than that, which is why we have framed the consultation in the way that we have.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I commend the statement of the Secretary of State. In particular, I commend the Minister for Women—I do not take anything away from the Secretary of State for making this statement today—for tirelessly pushing for this. I thank her for that.

Ever since the first women’s refuge—Chiswick Women’s Aid—was created in 1971 by Erin Pizzey, women’s refuges have been precarious financially. They have existed hand to mouth from year to year, never knowing what their financial situation will be. The reason why this is a very important statement and an important moment today is that it marks the point at which it is recognised that this is not just an optional issue, dependent on locality, but actually a national public policy imperative. We should recognise the really serious step forward that has been made.

I join other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, in paying tribute to all those people around the country—including in the refuge movement but more widely in the women’s movement—who have pushed for this moment, and also to women across the House who have provided the support that has led to this statement. Will the Secretary of State explain to the Chancellor that we are very supportive of this statement, and that we will expect the Government to put their money where their mouth is?

As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, 150 women a day have been turned away from refuges because of the lack of available resources. We do not want the Government to rob Peter to pay Paula; we want the money to be there. The Secretary of State has said that he is going consult, and that is absolutely right, but he does not need to consult me any further because I can tell him what my view is: this is a thoroughly good thing. Will he get on with it and ensure that it is fully funded?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her comments and for her leadership as one of the key Members across the House who have championed the issue for so many years. I recognise her contribution in getting to the place at which we have arrived today. She is right to say that this is a national public policy issue, and that we need to deal with variability to ensure a national standard that we seek to reach through this new statutory duty—hence, the consultation. She clearly and plainly makes the point that we need to ensure the necessary financial investment and support for these measures, and I am grateful for her support regarding those conversations with the Chancellor.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I also pay tribute to the excellent work of Stirling Women’s Aid; Jess Lindhoff and her team do extraordinary work and it is always humbling to be with them.

Domestic abuse support services are devolved across the United Kingdom, but will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will consider a UK-wide ombudsman or similar to guarantee standards across the entire United Kingdom?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will know, today’s announcement relates to England, as these issues are devolved. The Domestic Abuse Bill, which has been published in draft format, contemplates and sets out a new domestic abuse commissioner to stand up for victims. I am sure that the point that he makes on the way in which that provision can be applied UK-wide will be part of the Bill’s consideration.

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

I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. A statutory duty on local authorities was a specific recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee’s report last year on domestic abuse. As part of the report, we raised the need for local areas to work together, given that people sometimes need to move to a different area because of the risks they face or to ensure they are safe. Will the Secretary of State make sure that his review recognises the need for areas to work together? Will he also consider our specific recommendation of a ring-fenced fund to ensure that the capacity gap is met and that nobody ends up unable to find a safe place?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the right hon. Lady and the work of her Select Committee in ensuring a good evidence base, and in taking that evidence and presenting it in the way the Committee did. We have responded to that today. The statutory duty will do much to ensure a focus on commissioning, resources and delivering against the need in individual communities.

The right hon. Lady makes a valid and fair point about co-operation within and between areas. There have previously been problems, so we have given firmer and clearer guidance on people’s ability to access services in an area even if they do not live in that area; somehow that was previously a barrier, which it should not have been. It is important that we remain vigilant and conscious of such problems as we approach the consultation and what we learn from it.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which I support very strongly. It is very timely, of course. A recent Women’s Aid report showed that about a third of domestic abuse services have been forced to reduce the support they provide in the past few years, and that one in 10 refuges received no funding whatsoever from local authorities in the past 12 months.

The Secretary of State refers to partnership with police and crime commissioners. Will he provide additional funds for police authorities such as Cumbria to reverse the cuts in police numbers in order to identify and protect victims? Will he say a little more about what assessment he has made of the impact on other local services, because councils inevitably raid important other budgets to subsidise new statutory services if they are not properly funded and, indeed, ring-fenced?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman heard what I said about the investment that was provided last November and the bed capacity it has given, and about other services that have been provided in that way. There is clearly much more to do, but the number of available bed spaces for victims has actually risen since 2010. Again, I want to see that there is proper, assessed support for the needs that are there, which is what the statutory duty is all about.

Police funding is obviously a matter for Home Office colleagues, but I would point out that more than £1 billion extra has been made available to the police during this financial year.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. Ever since I was elected as a councillor, many years ago, I have been asking that this be made a statutory duty on councils. But the issue is funding. He made no mention of upfront funding. Will he elaborate on the resources that are, absolutely, needed to provide this service?

[James Brokenshire]

It is worth bearing in mind the timing. The statutory duty will require legislation to be implemented through the Domestic Abuse Bill that we want to progress later this year. The spending review then talks to the next financial year, 2020-21, and kicks in. We are consulting now to inform the discussion that I will have with the Treasury as part of the spending review, recognising the new burdens and the additional funding that will be required to follow through on this.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I welcome today’s announcement and I am grateful for prior sight of the statement. The announcement refers to England only, although the Government’s draft Domestic Abuse Bill applies to England and Wales, with some UK-wide aspects. Will the Secretary of State confirm that extra funding will be made available to the Welsh Government to support safe accommodation for victims and children fleeing violent homes in Wales?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have indicated, these services are for England. Yes, there are various aspects of the Domestic Abuse Bill, as we have discussed, relating to other provisions within it that have operational impact. However, I will certainly commit to work with the Government of Wales to see how we can ensure that things are well co-ordinated.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ending homelessness, I welcome this statement. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will now ensure that automatic priority for housing is extended to everyone fleeing domestic violence so that they are guaranteed a safe, long-term home and not just emergency temporary accommodation?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point on move-on and how we ensure that prioritisation. There is guidance to that effect, but equally I will look to see whether further steps are required in the light of the consultation.

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome this statement, which will be very welcome in my constituency. I have often raised concerns about Jane’s Place in my constituency, which opened in 2017 to provide specialist support for victims of the most horrendous domestic abuse, which affected those victims in a very serious fashion. Since it opened, over 400 women and their children have benefited. The management of this excellent facility have regularly been in the very regrettable position of sending women away because it was full. Ever since it opened, its funding has been extremely precarious. I do welcome today’s statement, but I fear that without funding—ring-fenced funding—it will not be in a position to guarantee that its excellent services are available next year, and to plan staffing and future provision.

[James Brokenshire]

I commend the hon. Lady. I know that she has spoken to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), about the incredible work that Jane’s Place does. The whole point of this new statutory duty on commissioning and assessment of need is to put funding on a sustainable basis, rather than have the uncertainty that the sector has faced over many years.

That is the intent behind the statutory duty. I hope the hon. Lady will be assured about the approach we are taking. We recognise the need for a lack of variability across areas and for a long-term financial position for the incredible work that is taking place.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s statement. Some 60% of referrals to a refuge service were declined last year, which I am sure the Secretary of State will agree is a shockingly and unacceptably large statistic. As well as providing the sustainable funding that many Members have called for, what can be done to provide capacity in the sector, so that survivors of domestic violence are provided with the support they need?

[James Brokenshire]

I hope the hon. Lady will be assured about the responsibilities that we contemplate through the creation of this duty, which include firmly assessing the need and demand for accommodation-based support for all victims and their children, working on strategies for the provision of support and making commissioning decisions to sit alongside those. We envisage that step-by-step approach as part of the statutory duty, to assess the needs in a particular area and commission accordingly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am aware that this duty applies to England, but over the years some of my constituents have fled to England because of domestic abuse, and people have come to our constituency from England because of domestic abuse. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that co-operation with devolved government and local councils in Northern Ireland will continue and that lessons will be learned from how we have successfully handled cases of domestic abuse in Northern Ireland?

[James Brokenshire]

I commend what the hon. Gentleman says. I know from my ministerial experience the incredible work and support services that are provided in Northern Ireland. As I indicated in a previous answer, I would like to consider how we can ensure that there is a good connection with each of the devolved Administrations, and perhaps we can have a further conversation outside the Chamber about that.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Grimsby has had domestic violence provision for more than 40 years. The refuge is run by Denise Farman, who does an excellent job, and women arrive from all across the country to receive support, often with their children in tow. The service is funded only in terms of the property’s rent, through housing benefit. There is no additional funding for any of the other services it provides, including specialist support for the children—everything from swings and play equipment to talking therapies. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is essential to ensure that this funding is ring-fenced, so that the broad provision of these services is available and sustainable for the long term, and they do not have to worry about year-to-year funding gaps or rely on public funding through donations?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that specific service; I know that the Minister for Women, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is on the Front Bench, has visited it. Ultimately, we want to ensure long-term sustainability and confidence in service provision to meet local needs. I remain open-minded about how we look at this as the consultation develops. The duty is intended to place in the minds of local authorities the way in which funding is provided and the need for services for children or other specialist support, outreach or accommodation-based services. The point of the consultation is to listen and ensure that when we implement this through the Bill, we do it well.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the statement from the Secretary of State, but both the supply of refuge places and whether women feel able to leave the abusive relationship they are in are very much dependent on social security support. What discussions has he had with the Work and Pensions Secretary, particularly in relation to universal credit—we believe that a split payment should be automatic—and the two-child limit?

[James Brokenshire]

I assure the hon. Lady that work across government is taking place on these issues—in the context of the Domestic Abuse Bill and more broadly on the availability of welfare, which, as she rightly says, is often one of the key elements in the support for and funding of rental and other aspects of need. On the point she makes about leaving the abusive relationship, a number of people actually want to stay in a particular home, and this is therefore about how the provisions in the Domestic Abuse Bill work in relation to extra sanctions and such measures. We talk about the concept of accommodation-based services, but important as refuges are, and they are hugely important, we equally recognise that there are other needs, and this is about the way in which that service and such support can be delivered.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is welcome news, as we have seen by how warmly it has been received. A woman in Nottingham fleeing abuse may be reliant on facilities elsewhere, so the decisions taken in other communities are of as much interest to me as those taken in my own. What does the Secretary of State foresee putting in the statutory guidance about the responsibility of local communities and authorities to work together so that we have a genuinely national network of refugees?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. As part of the duty on local authorities, there is a responsibility to monitor and evaluate local delivery, as well as to report back to my Department about their strategies and the implementation of them. One of the things I will be very interested in and focused on as we look to deliver this is the issue of data sharing, which, as we know, can sometimes be challenging and problematic in other policy areas. This is about how we are best able to reflect on the fact that people will understandably move from one area to another; indeed, that may be an imperative part of delivering their safety. As we look to the implementation and delivery, this is therefore an important part, and I hope we are able to get some good responses through the consultation.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly commend all the work that is done by Rhondda Cynon Taf Women’s Aid, which is primarily based in Pontypridd but serves the whole of RCT. In the next few weeks, it will open a new service in Dunraven Street in Tonypandy that is publicly available, and it covers a whole series of different services that are non-residential, which is great.

May I raise a different element with the Secretary of State? There is the issue of so many women in prison who have now been shown, from substantial academic research, to have had acquired brain injuries prior to their offending behaviour. In the end, because we do not provide proper neuro-rehabilitation to women whose violence has come from a domestic relationship, we are not actually providing proper support and they end up in the criminal justice system, so the victim ends up becoming the criminal.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important and relevant point about understanding someone’s pathway into the criminal justice system. My hon. Friend the Minister for Women, who is alongside me on the Front Bench, has just told me about the £2 million being provided for work on female offenders. That is really important, as is recognising needs in different contexts and providing support in different ways, responding in a much more holistic way to where need is and, indeed, understanding properly the balance between how someone has become an offender while saying very firmly that they can be a victim, too.

Buildings with ACM Cladding

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the remediation of private sector residential buildings with aluminium composite material cladding.

In the wake of the tragic Grenfell Tower fire, the Government acted urgently to address the serious fire and public safety risks exposed by the tragedy. Throughout, the safety of residents has remained our priority. We have from the outset sought expert advice, which together with our own testing programme has highlighted the unparalleled fire risk posed by ACM cladding of the type believed to be present on Grenfell Tower. The Government are clear that the type of ACM cladding believed to be on Grenfell Tower, and present on hundreds of other high-rise buildings, is not safe. This type of ACM is exceptional owing to the high risk it poses as an accelerant of fire. It did not comply with building regulations and should never have been put up.

For many years, building regulations have included a requirement that exterior walls be constructed to resist the spread of fire. Since the Grenfell tragedy, we have taken action to put that beyond doubt. We have amended the law to explicitly ban combustible materials from use in the exterior walls of all high-rise residential buildings, as well as in hospitals, residential care premises, dormitories in boarding schools, and student accommodation over 18 metres. That ban applies to all new buildings in these categories and to those buildings when major works to the exterior walls take place. The long-standing requirement that exterior walls should adequately resist the spread of fire continues to apply to all other high-rise buildings, including commercial buildings, being developed or undergoing major works to exterior walls.

With the support of local authorities and fire and rescue services, we have identified a total of 433 high-rise residential and other buildings with unsafe ACM cladding. All these buildings have been assessed by fire and rescue services and interim safety measures are in place where necessary, and these measures are kept under review by fire and rescue services, but we recognise that residents will have true peace of mind only when unsafe cladding has been removed and replaced with safe materials. In those buildings owned by local authorities and housing associations, we are making strong progress. We have made £400 million available to pay for the remediation of ACM cladding, and remediation has started or been completed in 87% of social sector buildings, with plans and commitments in place to remediate all remaining buildings.

We have also seen some progress in the private sector. Some building owners have acted swiftly and responsibly to put plans in place for full remediation of the cladding on their buildings and committed to protecting leaseholders from bearing the costs. This progress has been supported by the work of a remediation taskforce chaired by Ministers. In addition, where necessary, the Government are supporting local authorities to use their enforcement powers to ensure that building owners take the required action.

That said, too many building owners have failed to take responsibility. Many building owners have been too slow to co-operate to enable the prompt identification of buildings with unsafe ACM cladding and have since dragged their feet in planning for remediation. The result is that, almost two years on from the Grenfell tragedy, an unacceptable number of residents are still living in buildings that, while benefiting from additional safety measures in the interim, will not be remediated fully within an acceptable timescale.

Moreover, many leaseholders face unfair, and often substantial, costs. The Government believe this to be completely unacceptable. Leaseholders find themselves in this position through no fault of their own, and this is not morally defensible. The Housing Minister, my officials and I have all met residents affected by these issues and heard their personal concerns. We all appreciate their anguish and we pay tribute to their resilience and strength. I also want to acknowledge the continued work of Grenfell United, the UK Cladding Action Group and others. Many people told us they lived in constant fear—fear for the safety of their home; fear of the possibility of having to find tens of thousands of pounds for remediation; fear that they could no longer sell their properties and may have to forfeit them if costs are not met.

Where building owners have failed to step up, it is now imperative that the Government act. We must ensure the long-term safety of the people living in these buildings. The Government are therefore announcing today a new fund to unblock progress in remediating private sector high-rise residential buildings. First and foremost, this fund is about public safety. It will allow remediation to happen quickly, restore peace of mind and allow residents living in these blocks to get on with their lives. It will also protect leaseholders from bearing the cost. Building owners or those responsible for fire safety should prioritise getting on with the work necessary to make their buildings permanently safe. The new fund, which is estimated at £200 million, will cover the full cost of remediating the unsafe ACM cladding systems in privately owned high-rise residential buildings. This funding is being provided entirely for the benefit of the leaseholders in the buildings.

Important reforms of leasehold and implementing the Hackitt review’s recommendations on the safety of high-rise residential buildings are already in train. I will update the House on implementation in the coming weeks. When the new system is in place, it will help to prevent leaseholders from being confronted with unaffordable one-off charges.

Several developers and freeholders have already agreed to fund the costs of remediation and not to pass them on to leaseholders. Many of them have already agreed to maintain their commitment. The owners or developers who have made those commitments include Taylor Wimpey, Legal & General, Mace Group, Lendlease, Barratt Developments and Aberdeen Standard Investments. I commend them for the responsible and moral position that they have taken.

The fund does not absolve industry from taking responsibility for the failures that led to the ACM being wrongly put on buildings. As a condition of funding, we will stipulate that building owners must pursue warranty and insurance claims and any appropriate action against those responsible for putting unsafe cladding on the buildings, with moneys to be repaid to the Government.

We will write to all potential fund applicants by the end of next week to start engaging them in preparation for formal applications. We will also make funding conditional on the building owner or responsible person agreeing a contract to start remediation works within a set period. We will provide further details on the application process; I urge those who intend to apply to start developing ACM remediation proposals and costings so that applications can be made and processed promptly.

Everyone has a right to feel safe in their home. We want to see building owners acting to ensure that unsafe ACM is replaced without delay. That is why we are taking this exceptional step today. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for our announcement. It is right that the Government have acted, but I underline the fact that the primary responsibility rests and rested with the building owners and with those responsible. We have now stepped in because of the failures we have seen in the private sector, although we acknowledge and recognise the many building owners and developers who have done the right thing by stepping up and agreeing to provide or maintain funding to address the need for remediation.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about urgency and timing. We did act with urgency in terms of the advice given. Indeed, I indicated in my statement the challenges in identifying some of the blocks affected and the work that was done at pace with local authorities. In some cases, local authorities had to take enforcement action to enable us to survey and identify those buildings, working with the relevant fire authorities, to which I pay tribute for their analysis and advice, and with the expert panel that was set up to advise Ministers.

The right hon. Gentleman asked several questions about the nature and manner of my announcement. One question was about non-ACM cladding systems. He will know that a testing programme is under way to assess non-ACM systems. That work is already happening. Advice was provided by the expert panel in December 2017 and updated in December 2018. That has been the focus, but clearly we will act on information and evidence provided as a consequence of the further testing programme. However, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to be careful not to prejudge the outcome or the results that we expect in the weeks ahead.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about funding. We intend to manage funding for the policy through our existing significant programme budgets. To put that in context, if the full amount were used, it would represent something like 3% of this year’s financial programming. We will keep the House updated through the supplementary estimate. The size of the new fund is informed by the public sector fund’s utilisation and drawdown, by the financial support that has been provided by some of the developers and builders, and by the insurance that has been activated for a number of the buildings.

With respect to the follow-through, clearly we want action to be taken to continue with liability claims. That process will be managed as we work with each of the building owners. As I indicated, we intend to start the process by the end of next week, by writing to the owners of the buildings that have been identified based on the information that we have.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about legislation. We have supported local authorities in their enforcement activity through the joint inspection team. We remain ready, willing and able to support local authorities in the enforcement activity that they may determine to be necessary, and we are clarifying rules, regulations and guidance to assist them in that regard.



Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that I am very clear about the fact that the current regulatory regime needs further significant change. That is why the Hackitt review was undertaken in the first place. In her report, Dame Judith Hackitt presented a very stark picture of the need for responsibility, for tougher sanctions and, indeed, for different regulatory arrangements. I propose to update the House on next steps in the coming weeks, because I hear that message very clearly, and I intend to act.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and thank both him and the Minister of State. I know that achieving this result has required significant legal complexities to be overcome, and I appreciate the fact that the Government have listened. This will come as a great relief to the residents of Northpoint, in my constituency, who, along with many others, have suffered stress as well as financial loss.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the fund will cover all cladding systems which include ACM cladding? As he knows, some cladding systems consist of a mixture of ACM and other forms of cladding, and it is obviously right for all systems to be subject to this protection.

[James Brokenshire]

I commend my hon. Friend for his strenuous efforts on behalf of his constituents in relation to Northpoint. I understand the issue that he has highlighted. The fund is intended to provide capital support for the removal of ACM cladding systems, including insulation, as well as the removal and disposal of existing cladding, replacement materials and labour. As part of the process of writing to building owners and of the subsequent work, we will specify that in greater detail to give reassurance.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. Any announcement of help for those affected by the Grenfell tragedy, directly or indirectly, must of course be welcomed, but as the second anniversary of the tragedy approaches, it is incredible that the public and MPs are still having to push for that help.

The first thing to establish is whether the fund will be enough to help those affected. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the £200 million that has been released will pay for work on all private towers, or are the reports that it will not be enough correct?

The replacement work has been described by the UK Cladding Action Group as a “cladding lottery”, because it covers only ACM panels of the type that helped to spread the fire at Grenfell. Combustible non-ACM cladding, and other fire safety problems such as faulty or missing fire breaks in wall systems, will not be covered. What additional action can the Secretary of State promise affected residents to ensure that these safety measures are completed in a full and joined-up manner?

People have reported losing their life savings on interim measures, being forced to delay starting a family because of the financial uncertainty or turning to drink or drugs, along with serious mental health issues. Does the Secretary of State believe it is acceptable that freeholders and developers have been allowed simply to refuse to pay to make their buildings safe, and does he believe that if changes to the law are required to force them to take their responsibilities seriously, the Government will give that serious consideration?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming my announcement. I should, for his sake, make it clear that this applies only in England, because, as he knows, responsibility for housing policy and building regulations is a devolved matter.

I have already responded to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. As I have said, the £200 million represents an estimate of the cost, based on the existing experience of remediation—some of the work that has already been done—and taking account of instances in which developers, or insurance, are already in place. It is there to provide capital support. It is because of the need for urgency that we are taking steps to ensure, as a priority, that there is no need to rely on interim measures, because of both the nature and the cost of such measures.

I absolutely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s broader point about the need for developers and freeholders to stand up and do the right thing: I have stated that very plainly on a number of occasions, and I am hugely frustrated by the action—or lack of action—on the part of a number of those involved. He asked about changes in the law; that issue clearly flows from the Hackitt review, and, as I have said, I will update the House.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

I welcome the statement, but does the Secretary of State share my concern about the difficulties that the Department has had to surmount in order to be in a position to make such a statement, and about the fact that it was necessary in the first place? As he has said, many in the industry have acted responsibly and swiftly, but too many have not. May I encourage him, as he finishes—quickly, I hope—the work involved in responding to the Hackitt review, to apply that learning and the experience of just how difficult it has been for him and his Department to put this programme together, and to reflect in his response the fact that many residents have the same issues, day in day out, with the owners of the buildings in which they live? We should all bear in mind that while those owners are quite happy to take the gains that come with owning a building, they must also take the responsibilities that it brings.

[James Brokenshire]

I entirely agree with the points that my right hon. Friend has made. I think that she senses my real frustration and, indeed, anger at some of the practice that I have seen. We are taking this exceptional step because of the nature of the material with which we are dealing, but it has also shone a light on some of the wrongful and damaging practice that is out there, including practice in the construction industry. We are continuing to pursue those issues, and will follow through on them in our response to the Hackitt review.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the money, although I have to say that the Department‘s idea of urgency is not quite the same as mine, two years after Grenfell. I think that the Secretary of State was wise to make his statement just under the wire, before the second anniversary of that disaster. If he will be writing to owners in the next week or so, he presumably already knows what steps he will be asking them to take to comply with the requirement to seek compensation from those who installed the cladding when that is possible. If he knows what steps will be taken, will he share that information with us, and will he also tell us who will decide whether those steps are sufficient?

[James Brokenshire]

In the case of an individual building, it will be up to the owners to set out what steps will be required. Obviously we will inform them of the nature of the information that we require about, for instance, assessments and the various bids and tenders that we would expect to have been undertaken. The differences between individual buildings, the nature of the system and the extent of the ACM cladding on each building have been very much in our minds in relation to the operation of the public sector fund, and we will apply that experience to the operation of the new scheme. However, I understand that sense of the need for continued pace, given that where substantial works are required, planning permissions will be needed, and given the nature of some of the construction work that will be necessary. It is precisely that work in which we will be engaged.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I think my right hon. Friend is properly fulfilling the words that he uttered on 30 April 2018, when he said that leaseholders would not be left in the lurch. Members in all parts of the House will be grateful for that.

We fully understand why the Minister of State was unable to make a statement of this kind yesterday, at a meeting which was chaired by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and attended by members of the UK Cladding Action Group and many other experts. I hope that what was said at that meeting will be passed on to the Department, because it is important for us to continue to make progress, and we are grateful for the lead that my right hon. Friend has given.

Let me also say to my right hon. Friend that it is vital that he, and his permanent secretary, acknowledge the role of those at Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, who were the first to identify the fact that there was no simple solution. It was they who caused the Government to ask the Law Commission to look into the problems of leasehold. I ask him to ensure that his officials and LEASE, the Government’s Leasehold Advisory Service, respect Martin Boyd and Sebastian O’Kelly, without whom no Member of Parliament would have been able to get as far as we have, together, across the Chamber.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend rightly points out the contribution of many people in the steps that have been taken and in providing the essential technical and other information to inform and assist in the taking of robust action where required, and we will continue to engage in that. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend: he has been a passionate advocate of the rights of leaseholders and others across the House, and that pressure and contribution has helped to make a difference.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

This bail-out for unscrupulous freeholders and developers is welcome, especially to leaseholders such as mine at New Providence Wharf, so I thank the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues for the money, as will the UK Cladding Action Group, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership mentioned by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and Inside Housing—this statement probably guarantees the Secretary of State a splash front page in its next issue, which cannot do him any harm. The steps the Government have had to take show the weaknesses of the unregulated leasehold sector. Can the Secretary of State confirm that his Department will redouble its efforts to fulfil the promises of comprehensive leasehold reform as soon as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his campaigning on these issues of fire safety, as well as on leasehold, over many months. Regardless of whether I look forward to coverage in Inside Housing, I recognise the work it has done in assisting and helping to shine a light on a number of these factors. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are programmes of work by the Law Society and other agencies, and the Law Commission’s overarching work on leasehold is a separate programme that we intend to continue. We will continue to engage with the hon. Gentleman and others in relation to progress on that.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State explain how this welcome scheme will work in a couple of respects? Is the list of 433 vulnerable buildings going to be published? How will those who might be living in a building where no work has been done be able to access the scheme, and will any of the money be recoverable from the freeholders who refuse to do the work of their own volition?

[James Brokenshire]

We are aware of all the survey work and other steps that local government has been involved in, and I pay tribute to local councillors for their active engagement, alongside fire authorities, in enabling us to arrive at this position. As I have said, we want claims to continue to be made against those with responsibility and liability, whether through warranty claims or insurance, and to see that moneys are repaid. There are 175 private residential buildings and 159 social residential buildings where ACM cladding has been identified, and steps and interim measures will be in place to give assurance now. We will continue to engage with the authorities and building owners as we make progress in this regard.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Last March six buildings in the centre of Leeds were identified as still having dangerous ACM cladding. The freeholders of some of them have announced they would meet the cost, but for constituents of mine who live in buildings where that commitment has not been given, today’s announcement will be very welcome, and I thank the Secretary of State for it. Can he clarify the following two points? First, will freeholders who have said they will pay for the work but have not begun it be eligible for the funding? Secondly, as the Secretary of State will be aware, many people have for months and months been paying the cost of waking watches, and those who have been most heavily penalised are those with freeholders who have not lived up to their responsibilities, which is why they are still paying for a waking watch. Who does the Secretary of State think ought to meet those costs? In my view, speaking on behalf of my constituents it should not be them, as this is an unjustifiable expense which is not their fault.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say previously where I think moral responsibility lies. It should not be leaseholders who pick up the cost, which is why I am making the statement today in relation to the capital costs and making progress so that waking watches and other interim measures are minimised and foreshortened. On the question of freeholders, in essence the scheme is available to all private sector buildings that fall within its remit, potentially including those where commitments have already been made, but, as I have said, a number of those developers and building owners have said that, notwithstanding that, they maintain their commitment and we are trying to keep this simple and make sure we meet all legal requirements so that there is swift progress.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his work and that of the Minister for Housing in securing this fund. This was a tough decision, but it is the right decision, and it seems to have gone even further than the Select Committee recommendation of a low-interest loan. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this is a grant rather than a loan and in no circumstances is it repayable by the long leaseholders?

[James Brokenshire]

I can give my hon. Friend that confirmation, and I pay tribute to him for his steadfast work on the Select Committee and outside in championing these issues. I also join him in paying tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing who has also been steadfast in advancing the issues of concern. We looked at questions such as whether a loan arrangement could work but ultimately, given the complexity, the time that would have been involved and the need for all sorts of different consents, and given that my priority is providing a sense of assurance for leaseholders and getting on with this, we decided to adopt this structure.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement. We in Tower Hamlets have among the highest number of ACM-cladded blocks so it is very welcome, but it has taken two years and people fighting tooth and nail to get here, particularly the campaign groups as well as Members across the House. Although the amount of money is welcome, does the Secretary of State believe that it is adequate to cover the number of properties affected, and will he today commit to look at the 1,700 high-rise and high-risk blocks with dangerous non-ACM cladding so that their residents can sleep at night in peace without having to campaign for a further two years for us to get to this point again? I welcome the work of the Secretary of State and the Minister but we need urgent action on those outstanding properties too.

[James Brokenshire]

As I have indicated, through the inputs of the expert panel in relation to non-ACM systems, we have already provided advice to building owners, which was refreshed again last December. We have the testing programme that has commenced and we are looking at the results carefully. I do highlight the exceptional nature of the ACM material and the advice we have seen that underlines the exceptional steps I am taking today. I do understand the frustration, strain and stress that so many people living in these blocks have felt and continue to feel. On costs, we have assessed this on the basis of commitments, insurance and the experience in relation to the public sector fund, so it has been judged carefully but we keep it under review.

[Dame Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. It is good news for the residents of Heysmoor Heights in Liverpool, a block owned by the offshore Abacus Land 4, where the work has been done but residents have been charged for it. Will the Secretary of State ensure the residents are reimbursed for the amounts they have paid and that any debts some have accrued because they have been unable to pay are wiped off?

[James Brokenshire]

I hope that I can give some reassurance to the hon. Lady. The scheme is intended to cover situations where remediation work to remove ACM cladding and replace it has already been done but those costs have been passed on to the leaseholders. That is why I made the point that this issue is about public safety but also the residents or leaseholders themselves. I hope that gives reassurance, but I and the Minister for Housing will be happy to remain in contact with the hon. Lady to ensure that the information is properly provided and we see that followed through.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State clarify whether this money is being made available to compensate those freeholders who wilfully refuse to spend money on remedial action to remove ACM cladding unless they are compensated for the leaseholders’ share of the cost of carrying out the work? In other words, are we compensating the worst actors in this situation?

[James Brokenshire]

It is worth explaining to the hon. Gentleman that, as a matter of law, responsibility and liability effectively fall on the leaseholders themselves—court cases have demonstrated this—and the aim of this scheme is to protect those leaseholders. We want to ensure that we make progress and deal with the public safety issues that I have already described. Yes, we are obviously working with those building owners as a point of contact, but that does not in any way cut against the other points that I have made about those who are responsible, about liability, about insurance and about other factors, which we are obviously building within the scheme as well.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I welcome this announcement and echo the words of support that the Secretary of State has expressed for Grenfell United, the UK Cladding Action Group and others who have campaigned on this issue. Will he clarify one point in relation to his statement? He said that the funding would be conditional on the building owner

“agreeing a contract to start remediation works within a set period.”

Can he say what that set period will be? Can he also tell us what will happen if they do not do it within that set period? Would he perhaps be willing to name and shame those who are unwilling to take their responsibilities seriously?

[James Brokenshire]

I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. He has expressed the frustration that so many of us feel. There are companies that have done the right thing, and I have named a number of companies that are still fulfilling and standing up behind the commitments that they have already made. Equally, however, there are those that have not done so. He asked about the condition. We are trying to find a way of acting as a lever or catalyst. We can say, “Okay, you have made an application and accepted those works, but we need to have a means of staying in contact to get an update to ensure that the work is actually being done.” For me, what matters is seeing that the action is followed through and fulfilled. It is difficult to give the right hon. Gentleman a set period, because of the different nature of the works required on each building. Different cases will require different works, but the purpose behind the condition is to ensure that those buildings are remediated.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am not sure that the Secretary of State responded to the last question that the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), asked him, which was whether there was a hard deadline by which all the work had to be done and all the cladding removed from private and social buildings. If there is no such deadline, why not?

[James Brokenshire]

I thought I had responded to the question on timing. We know from experience that the remediation and construction works could take many months in some cases, so it is difficult to set a specific period. Each building and each set of circumstances will be different, and the nature of the works required will therefore be different in each case. However, if the hon. Lady is saying that we need to act at pace and with a sense of urgency, I entirely agree with her. That is why we have sought to construct the scheme in this way, and we will follow through to ensure that action is taken.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

It is almost two years since the horrifying and deadly Grenfell Tower fire, and I find it unacceptable that almost eight in 10 of the other blocks across our country identified as having Grenfell-style cladding have not had it removed and replaced. Why have the Government taken so long to act, after their solemn promise to the nation? Will the Secretary of State now set a deadline by which all blocks have to be made safe? And importantly, if this money is to come from the existing budget, will he tell us what the Government will not be doing?

[James Brokenshire]

On the latter point, I have already indicated how we intend to manage this, and we will keep the House updated through the normal supplementary estimates process. The hon. Gentleman talks about his frustration—it is also my frustration—that so many private sector freeholders have just not acted. We needed to take action to identify the enforcement action that councils needed to take to determine whether the material was on those buildings. I understand his frustration and the strain that this has placed on so many people living in those blocks. That is why we have taken this exceptional action today; ultimately, the responsibility should reside with the building owners to take the steps that they have failed to take thus far. I judge that today’s action is absolutely necessary because of the pace that we have not seen from them.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Public safety should always come first, and the Secretary of State’s announcement today is welcome indeed, but why is it that, two years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy and despite the assurances given at the time, not one single penny has been forthcoming to make safe the 213 tower blocks in Birmingham and their 10,000 house- holds? Crucially, this is despite the fact that work has been recommended by the West Midlands fire service on the installation of sprinklers. Will the Secretary of State do what he has quite rightly done in relation to the residents of private tower blocks, and will he agree to meet a delegation of Birmingham tenants from those 213 council tower blocks?

[James Brokenshire]

I would underline the support that we have given to public sector buildings, the £400 million fund that was committed last year and the progress that is being made on the removal of ACM cladding from buildings on the public sector estate. We are learning from that process in terms of the implementation and the steps that I am announcing today. The hon. Gentleman highlights broader fire safety measures, and building owners obviously have responsibilities in that regard. I note that he has raised the issue of sprinklers the past. We are looking at that in the context of new buildings through what is known as approved document B. Sprinklers can clearly be effective in a number of cases, and we have worked with councils and others to discuss funding flexibilities to deliver on that.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I find it very difficult to squeeze out a thank you for this statement. What a mess this has been! What a rotten time people have had! For two years, many people in this country have had a miserable existence, not knowing what will happen and not knowing how much debt they are getting into or whether they will be able to repay what they have borrowed. When we google “building regulations”, up pops the Department. This Government are shilly-shallying. I do not have one of these buildings in my constituency, but we have them in Yorkshire. The fact is that this Government have looked for scapegoats all the time. They blame the construction industry, the local authorities and the freeholders. The Secretary of State has been doing it this morning. All those people thought they were complying with building regulations; they thought they were complying with the law as it stood. Then we had the dreadful disaster of Grenfell and of course the door opened to disputes. The lawyers came in, and that is always bad news. Ordinary working people have suffered for two years, and the Secretary of State does not get much credit from me this morning.

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely understand the pressure and strain that so many people have felt they were under, but actually we have taken steps to work with fire authorities and local authorities in this regard. The hon. Gentleman makes a number of assertions, and he almost seems to suggest that those who wrongly put up this ACM material in the first place and who have wrongly failed to act have no responsibility at all. I encourage him to read the Hackitt review. Yes, it sets out in great detail where the law needs to be changed, and I have accepted that. I have said that we will take further steps in that regard, but there is equally responsibility placed on the construction sector and the private sector. I strongly encourage him to read that report.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

This announcement is long overdue, but it is nevertheless welcome. On a number of affected sites in my constituency, such as the Durkan-owned Babbage Point development in west Greenwich, the building owner has the necessary planning permission but is dragging their feet, with the significant cost of a permanent waking watch being passed on to leaseholders. I noted what the Secretary of State said about the funding being conditional on works beginning within a set period, but may I press him on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)? What more is the Secretary of State willing to do beyond appeals to morality to ensure that private building owners, not leaseholders, bear the full cost of the interim fire safety measures that have been necessary, in many cases, because building owners have not acted promptly?

[James Brokenshire]

The key thing is obviously to make quick progress, and I note what the hon. Gentleman says about that building. Part of the response involves continuing to work with local authorities on enforcement action where different building owners are not taking the steps they should in a timely fashion. I will certainly be interested to receive any more details on that specific case. There are legal liabilities regarding where responsibilities rest, but I want to see progress being made quickly. If there are examples of building owners dragging their feet, we want to hear about them so that that we can work with local authorities to see that action is taken.

Rough Sleeping

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

Early adopters of the Rapid Rehousing Pathway

In December, I announced the locations of the first 11 Somewhere Safe to Stay hubs, one of four elements that make up the Rapid Rehousing Pathway which were announced in the £100 million Rough Sleeping strategy last August. I am pleased to say that all 11 hubs are now operational. Furthermore, I can confirm that all 42 early adopters of the pathway, announced in February, are working hard to get staff in place and several are already delivering services. These 53 early adopters are focused on making sure that those who sleep rough, or are at risk of sleeping rough, are rapidly getting the support they need to move away from the street and sustain secure accommodation.

Rapid Rehousing Pathway new funding

I have now announced the allocations of up to £25.6 million of the second round of Rapid Rehousing Pathway funding. For 108 areas of the country this funding will provide:

20 additional Somewhere Safe to Stay hubs, to rapidly assess the needs of people who are sleeping rough and those who are at risk of sleeping rough and support them to get the right help quickly. This will bring the total number of hubs to 31,16 more than the minimum that we committed to in the 2018 Rough Sleeping strategy.

Up to £6.8 million of funding for 61 areas for supported lettings, offering flexible support funding to help people with a history of rough sleeping to sustain their tenancies in homes made newly available across the housing sector.

At least 130 navigators who will develop relationships with and help over 2,500 people who sleep rough to access appropriate local services, get off the streets and into settled accommodation.

Up to £3.5 million to establish or support 30 local lettings agencies to source, identify, or provide homes and advice for rough sleepers or those at risk.

A full list of the areas funded is available at: https://www. gov.uk/government/publications/rapid-rehousing-pathway-2019-to-2020-funding-allocations.

With this funding, local areas will be able to connect people with the right support and sustainable housing to move them swiftly away from the street and facilitate their recovery. This important work is part of delivering on the commitments outlined in the Rough Sleeping strategy and is crucial in bringing us a step closer towards ending rough sleeping.

[HCWS1539]

Building Safety: Combustible Materials

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

The Government’s building safety programme has focused primarily on immediate interim mitigation actions and permanent replacement of unsafe aluminium composite material (ACM) panels on high-rise buildings because of the acute risks posed by such panels.



In addition, we have banned the use of combustible materials in the exterior walls of all new residential buildings over 18 metres in height and certain other new high-rise buildings. We have acted on the advice of the Government’s independent expert advisory panel (IEAP) and issued advice to building owners about the steps they should take to ensure the safety of their existing buildings with other external wall systems that do not incorporate ACM, reiterating that the clearest way to ensure safety is to remove any unsafe materials. This advice was first issued in December 2017 and updated in December 2018 in the Department’s advice note 14:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-building-safety-programme#advice-notes

The IEAP also advised the Department to establish a research project to test and improve the evidence available on the behaviour of a range of non-ACM materials used in cladding systems when subjected to fire. The Building Research Establishment (BRE), has been commissioned to undertake this project.

The materials to be tested are: copper and zinc composite materials; aluminium honeycomb panels; high-pressure laminate panels; brick slips; and reconstituted stone. Tests will be carried out over the coming weeks and are expected to conclude in early summer.

A number of parameters characterising the behaviours of materials in a fire will be considered. The aim of the tests is to provide comparative data to enable an assessment of relative risks. There is no simple pass or fail criterion for each test. A copy of the methodology has been put in the Library of the House.

A full picture of the outcomes of the tests can only be provided following a detailed analysis of all the test data. We expect this analysis to be completed in the summer and we will publish the conclusions of the programme thereafter.

If any tests suggest an immediate public safety concern, the Government will consult the IEAP urgently, consider appropriate action, and inform the House and public accordingly.

In the meantime, building owners should follow the advice set out in advice note 14.

[HCWS1533]

Local Government and Social Care Funding

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

Let me begin my speech in the same way as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and underline the House’s complete condemnation of the appalling terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka and also in Northern Ireland.

The timing of the attack in Sri Lanka at Easter, when people were murdered at prayer, was utterly shocking, and has—rightly—been utterly condemned throughout the House. Our thoughts are firmly with the Sri Lankan community in the United Kingdom, and we send our prayers and condolences in the knowledge that so many people will have lost loved ones. Let me also say, as a former Northern Ireland Secretary, that the brutal murder of Lyra McKee was utterly shocking and disgusting, and that our thoughts and prayers are very firmly with her loved ones, her family and all who cared for her. What an incredible individual she was. At this time, as her funeral is under way, I know that the House will wish to send its thoughts, prayers and condolences to all who love her and all who care for her.

Let me now turn to the subject of today’s debate. Our local authorities and the people who serve them are delivering essential services and changing lives, and it is right that we help them to succeed. I pay tribute to all who work in our local councils up and down the country for the work that they do and the difference that they make to the lives of so many. As Secretary of State, I have made clear my support for local government, and my wish to enable councils to deliver benefits to the people whom they serve. I commend and support those councils, and I look forward to finding new ways in which services can be delivered most effectively, in the spirit of devolution, closer to the point at which they are received.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me say gently to the Secretary of State that what he has just said will be taken as weasel words in Harrow, in the context of a 97% reduction in revenue support grant. Can he offer any assurance that he has persuaded the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the coming comprehensive spending review, to invest in local government health and social care?

[James Brokenshire]

Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that this year we have given our local authorities access to £46.4 billion, a cash increase of 2.8% and a real-terms increase in funding. The settlement includes extra funds for local services, with a strong focus on support for some of our most vulnerable groups. It is part of a four-year settlement that has been accepted by 97% of local authorities, and gives so many areas access to substantially more funding than the least deprived. The average spending power per dwelling for the 10% most deprived authorities in 2019-20 is about 22% more than that for the least deprived.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that as part of the process of increasing the funding that is available, we should increase the practice of business rates retention as a way of incentivising local innovation and enterprise? In places like Cheltenham, it provides an incentive to build out things like our cyber-park, which will create a pipeline of local businesses providing income that can be spent on vital public services.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes the point very effectively about the innovation that we see in local authorities and he rightly underlines the work in his own community. Local authorities have campaigned for more flexibility and control over the money they raise, including the ability to create a more self-sufficient sector funded from their own resources. That includes the move to 75% business rate retention, with the benefits that that brings.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will consider changing the funding system to reward efficiency. As he knows, councils such as Bromley, which is near his Bexley authority, are historically low-cost authorities that have achieved enormous efficiencies over the years, yet they are asked again and again to make further efficiencies. Does he agree that it is time to adjust their baselines to reflect the historical efficiencies they have achieved?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that Bromley does incredible work for its local community. It has innovation, efficiency and real quality at the heart of its efforts. Equally, my hon. Friend raises an ongoing issue in respect of our fair funding review—the review of relative needs and resources. As we reflect on the submissions we have received to date in respect of how that balance is struck, we will certainly give careful consideration to a range of factors to ensure that the funds are applied in the appropriate way to recognise the relative needs and resources of individual authorities.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State not recognise that in the case of Birmingham, cumulative cuts of £775 million over a 12-year period are simply not sustainable for a city that has 42% of its children growing up in poverty? Whether or not he accepts that, will he at least do something about the historical underfunding? He will know that the formula for Birmingham was changed to recognise historical underfunding in 2016-17, but because that was not backdated to correct underfunding in the previous two years, Birmingham has been short-changed by £100 million. Will he at least put that right?

[James Brokenshire]

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that Birmingham is one of the authorities with the highest funding per capita. Equally, I am looking carefully at the representations that he and other Birmingham MPs have made to me. The ongoing strike action in Birmingham, with the non-collection of rubbish and the impact that that is having on communities, clearly has not helped. I therefore urge him to support the council in dealing with the challenges caused by the industrial strife that is being felt very firmly in Birmingham, with all the manifestations that that is creating.

[Emma Hardy]

Hull City Council has seen a reduction in its funding of 37.8% since 2010. That is having an impact on children with special educational needs and disabilities. Historically, no account has been taken of the number of children with SEND in an area and the amount of funding that it receives for the higher needs block. If the Government are serious about reviewing the way that local authorities are funded, surely that should be something they take into account.

[James Brokenshire]

I am working closely with the Secretary of State for Education as we look towards the next spending review. I will come on to the support that is being provided for adults’ and children’s social care, as well as how we are investing further on a number of other fronts. Therefore, we have recognised and reflected on a number of the pressures that we have seen. Clearly, in the further review of relative needs and resources, and as we look towards the next spending review, I will look at the data and the evidence very closely and carefully.

[Toby Perkins]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way one last time and then I will make some progress.

[Toby Perkins]

I am grateful. One thing that has been missing from the debate so far in terms of social care is that the vast majority of domestic visits are carried out by employees of private sector companies, as opposed to employees of local authorities, because most of these services have been outsourced. Huge numbers of those companies are going bust. It surely shows the Secretary of State that the system is unsustainable when 100 care homes have gone bust in the last couple of years.

[James Brokenshire]

The Minister for Care, who is sitting on the Bench next to me, says that the number of providers is going up. I can assure the hon. Gentleman about the steps that we are taking in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Care; the assurances; the quality work that colleagues across Government support and strengthen; and the arrangements that we put in place to step in when there are failures in the market and a failure of supply in relation to a particular provider. When we look at a number of these examples, we can see the work that has gone in to make sure that they are dealt with effectively.

It is about the quality of service. When we look at the broader issues of social care, which many Members across the House have rightly touched on, the focus is on the delivery of care and the delivery of outcomes. Simply spending money is not the answer in terms of delivering the high-quality care and the outcomes that some of the most vulnerable in our society need.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right to talk about the quality of care. Does he recognise that Bromley, his next-door neighbour, provides an example of a willingness to participate in close joint working between the health sector and social services? Given that one of the greatest pressures is the growing cost for top-tier authorities of caring for the elderly, will he ensure that the new funding review and the new arrangements enthuse and support authorities that, like Bromley, are prepared to do joint working?

[James Brokenshire]

Interestingly, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish tried to suggest that there was not good joined-up working, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) rightly highlights some of the good practice that is taking place in the further integration of health and social care. Indeed, the £240 million of funding that has been committed through this year’s settlement was very firmly aimed at ensuring that those pressures were taken off the NHS. I pay great tribute to the work that local authorities up and down the country have been engaged in, particularly around things like delayed transfers of care, where there has been a 45% reduction since the high point fairly recently. That demonstrates very clearly how we are making a difference.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way one last time, then I will make some more progress.

[James Morris]

On the delayed discharge of care, we recognise that ultimately there needs to be more integration between health and social care, and more money. The point that my right hon. Friend makes has a lot of impact, because where we have put money into social care and there has been good structural working between local authorities and the health service, we have seen a radical reduction in the delayed discharge of care. It is not all about money; it is about innovative joint working.

[James Brokenshire]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Joint working has been done on delayed discharges of care. It is about ensuring that there is good practice and sharing that more broadly. We are doing that equally in children’s social care, where the Department for Education is providing funding to ensure that that is better adopted. It is about good practice and looking at the outcomes. The simple binary approach that the Opposition take is, I think, mistaken.

Another issue on which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish was fulsome was that of council tax. I want to remind Labour Members that it was the Labour Government who made ordinary families pay the price for their failures, with band D council tax more than doubling under Labour and families paying an extra £750. Even now, Labour wants to abolish the council tax referendum limit, which prevents excessive rises in council tax. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that he is on the side of ordinary hard-working families, but that is not what we saw from Labour in government and it is not what we are seeing now. The real price of Labour is that it always costs you more. This is not just about the cost of a Labour Government; it is also about what people are paying now. Households in Labour-controlled areas have to pay higher council tax to make up for incompetent collection. In the worst-hit areas, Labour councils have unpaid council tax bills of up to £100 million, which is the equivalent of £439 for every household. The 10 councils with the worst collection rates in England are all Labour-run.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

It is true that Labour is promising £500 billion of extra spending, but what it is not telling ordinary hard-working families is that that will mean an increase in income tax and a doubling of national insurance, council tax and VAT. Those are not my words, but those of a former Labour shadow Chancellor.

[James Brokenshire]

The interesting thing about some of our earlier exchanges was the acknowledgement that the last Labour Government, going into the 2010 election, did not guarantee to protect local government. We have had to make difficult choices and confront difficult issues to put the public finances back on an even keel, and that has not been easy. I pay tribute to the innovation that councils have been engaged in up and down the country to help us to put this right. It is telling that there was no acknowledgement of that in the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks.

[Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

The Minister is saying that the Tory Government want to spend on things that work. I can tell him that what works is the troubled families programme, which is due to end next year. Will he take this opportunity to commit to the House to doing everything he can to keep that programme running after 2020?

[James Brokenshire]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has mentioned the troubled families programme, because I will be talking about that in greater detail later in my speech. I have been hugely impressed by the outcomes of the programme, which, as she rightly points out, is making a difference in people’s lives. I strongly believe that the troubled families programme has now shown an evidence base for how it is profoundly doing that. It is doing what has rightly been described across the House as pulling together services to create a person-centric approach, and breaking down some of the silos and barriers. I am a huge champion of the troubled families programme.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

So far, the Secretary of State has blamed striking workers and councils up and down the country. The one group that is not being blamed is his rotten Government: the responsibility for this crisis lies firmly at his door. When will he stop blaming everybody else and take some responsibility for the crisis in this country?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady must equally reflect on the fact that the Labour Opposition voted against a real-terms increase in the core spending available to local authorities this year. That included the additional funding for health and for adult and children’s social care. We recognised the pressures and made the right judgments in respect of the pressures that councils explained to us. The Opposition may wax lyrical about funding pressures, but their own councils are not even helping themselves.

The Opposition have some front to claim to be the champions of local government and localism. I took the time to read the shadow Secretary of State’s recent speech to Labour’s local government conference this year, and it contained some big and bold claims. It is just a shame that they were not backed up by reality. He said that Labour was the party of devolution. I must congratulate him on his selective memory. If I remember correctly, it was his party that, after 13 years, left the UK one of the most centralised countries in Europe. It took the Conservatives in government to roll back the era of centrally imposed targets and the tick-box culture imposed by the Labour party, and it is this Government who have put the public finances back on track and cleared up the mess we inherited from Labour.

[Toby Perkins]

I am sure the Secretary of State would not want people watching this debate to be misled by what he has just said about police funding. He knows as well as all of us that the reason Labour voted against the spending plans for the police was that we were proposing far greater spending on the police. That is why Labour Members voted against what we saw as his derisory offer to our desperately under-resourced police services.

[James Brokenshire]

We have given significant investment to the police. Indeed, the Chancellor has made further commitments on some of the most acute pressures that we know are being experienced. I was actually talking about the local government settlement, rather than the police settlement, which was dealt with separately. However, we made a commitment to providing additional resources, and we are backing the police to deal with the issues of crime.

[Robert Neill]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend is reminding Labour Members of Labour’s record. Someone had to come in and pick up the pieces in 2010. Might he also like to remind them that it was Labour that introduced compulsory capping on council tax levels, reducing the discretion of local authorities? That was then abolished by the Conservative-led coalition. It was Labour that introduced central planning through the directly imposed regional spatial strategies, overriding the wishes of local communities, and it was Labour that enforced compulsory unitary councils in areas that did not want them. One of those decisions was reversed by the Conservative Government in favour of the bottom-up approach brought in by this Government. Labour posing as the party of devolution has more front than Harrods, as my old grandma used to say.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes his point in his inimitable style.

We have promoted a greater sense of devolution, and this comes back to my point about trusting communities, councils and people at the grassroots to get on and deliver for their communities. It is this Government who have given local authorities the tools and resources they need to do their vital work, and it is Conservative councils that are providing value for money and delivering quality services for their residents while keeping council tax lower than in Labour and Liberal Democrat council areas. This includes doing the right thing on recycling, with Conservative councils recycling, reusing or composting around 49% of their waste, compared with 36% under Labour councils. This is about local delivery, which is what much of the current campaign and the votes in the forthcoming local council elections will be about.

[Rachael Maskell]

One area in which the Secretary of State and the Government have failed to invest since 2010 is staff. The Government may offer warm words, but a 21% real-terms pay decrease for some of the worst paid workers is completely unacceptable. How is the Secretary of State going to address that issue?

[James Brokenshire]

I hope the hon. Lady will have noticed that, according to the latest figures, real wages are actually going up. I remind her of the fact that pay restraint across the public sector was a consequence of the mess that we inherited from the last Labour Government. I know that this has been difficult; it has been really tough and incredibly hard. Equally, we are determined to maintain the strong economic path for our economy and to ensure that our public finances are now back in the right space and not left in the fashion that the last Labour Government left them in. I am mindful of the essential role our local authorities play in helping the most vulnerable in our society, and I recognise the growth in demand in adult and children’s social care and the pressure that that brings.

[Mr Betts]

I am interested in the exchanges across the Chamber about which party has been the best, or perhaps worst, at the devolution of council funding. It was actually the Thatcher Government who introduced the capping of rates—it continued with council tax—taking away councils’ freedom to set their own business rates. Is it not the reality that neither the previous Labour Government, nor the coalition Government nor this Government have done anything fundamentally to increase the freedom of councils to raise their own funding at a local level? I hope that the Secretary of State will address that when we finally see his devolution framework.

[James Brokenshire]

I look forward to engaging with the hon. Gentleman and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on issues relating to the devolution of business rates and so many other things. I profoundly believe in the merits and benefits of decisions being taken more locally and of local government having a sustainable position.

I am conscious of the number of Members who want to participate in this debate, so I will now make some progress.

Coming back to social care, £650 million out of the more than £1 billion of extra funding committed to councils at last year’s Budget will be going towards adult and children’s social care in 2019-20. Of that, £240 million has been allocated to ease pressures on the NHS, which comes on top of the £240 million announced in October to address winter pressures. The remaining £410 million can be spent on either adult or children’s social care where necessary to take the pressure off the NHS, meeting the request from local authorities for greater flexibility. Taken with the adult social care precept and the improved better care fund, the Government will have given councils access to £10 billion of dedicated funding, which can be used for adult social care in the three-year period from 2017-18 to 2019-20.

When it comes to protecting our children, we are investing £84 million over the next five years to expand three of our most successful children’s social care innovation programme projects. The projects will keep more children at home safely in up to 20 local authorities, but in the long run our work will ensure that our health and care systems are better integrated. That will be our most powerful tool in ensuring we have a sustainable approach in the years to come.

Returning to troubled families, which the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) rightly highlighted, I believe that our programme is helping local authorities to support families with complex needs and to improve outcomes for individuals. The programme has been a catalyst for local services, transforming how they work together, making them more integrated and cost-efficient, and reducing dependency and demand on expensive services. The results speak for themselves. The latest national programme evaluation shows that, when compared with a similar group, targeted intervention saw the number of children going into care down by a third, the number of adults going to prison down by a quarter, juveniles in custody down by a third, and 10% fewer people claiming jobseeker’s allowance. While I recognise that there is more to do, the results are a tribute to the tireless efforts of family workers, local authorities and their many partners in our public services and the voluntary sector. This is about so much more than the financial boost that someone can get from a regular wage. It is also about the pride and the dignity that comes with someone being able to take control of their own life.

The future of this country is not about an ever-growing collection of handouts and entitlements, but about growing prosperity and independence, and that equally applies to local government. This Government are working to build a more confident, self-sufficient and reinvigorated local government. With the end of the current multi-year deal in sight, we clearly need to take a longer view of how we fund councils as we move to a stronger, sustainable and smarter system of local government. This year’s preparations for increased business rate retention, a new approach to distributing funding between local authorities, and the upcoming spending review will also be pivotal. Important work is also under way with authorities and the wider sector to better understand service costs pressures.

For years, councils have asked us for more control over the money raised, and we are giving it to them through our plans to increase business rate retention to 75%. In the process, we will provide local authorities with powerful incentives to grow, and authorities estimate that they will retain around £2.5 billion in business rate growth in 2019-20 under the current system—a significant revenue stream on top of the core settlement funding. In addition to more control, councils want and need to see a clearer link between the allocation of resources and local circumstances, and our new fairer funding formula will ensure a more transparent link between local needs and resources and the funding that councils get.

I pay tribute to the leadership and creativity of our councils, which deliver high-quality services for their residents and efficiencies for the taxpayer. We are determined to give them the freedoms and flexibilities they need so that local government can continue to flourish and deliver vital services to meet the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. As voters go to the polls at the local elections, this Conservative Government are providing a real-terms increase in spending power for local government and giving councils the freedoms to deliver for their local communities, and hard-working Conservative councillors are providing value for money for hard-working families and the quality services that their residents deserve.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Private Rented Sector

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

You will have seen that last week I announced reforms to the legislative framework governing how private tenancies can be ended in England to improve security in the private rented sector for both tenants and landlords. This announcement followed my Department’s recent consultation on “Overcoming the Barriers to Longer Tenancies”. I also published the Government’s response to this consultation.

The private rented sector has changed dramatically in the last 20 years, and the sector needs to keep pace with these changes. The number of people who live in the private rented sector has doubled, and it is home to more families with children and older people. These households need stability and security in their home.

The current legislative framework leaves tenants feeling insecure. They can be asked to leave their homes, with as little as two months notice, without the landlord providing any reason, using eviction proceedings under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. This sense of insecurity can profoundly affect the ability of renters to plan for the future, to manage their finances or to put down roots in their local communities.

The Government intend to establish a fairer system for both tenants and landlords by legislating to repeal section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. Bringing an end to so-called “no fault evictions”, would mean that a tenant cannot be forced to leave their home unless the landlord can prove a specified ground, such as rent arrears or breach of tenancy agreement. It would provide tenants with more stability and protect them from having to make frequent and short notice moves. It would also empower tenants to challenge their landlord about poor property standards where this occurs, without the worry of being evicted as a result of making a complaint.

The private rented sector must also remain a stable and secure market for landlords to continue to invest in. The legislation I intend to introduce will include measures that provide landlords with additional safeguards to successfully manage their properties. We will strengthen the existing grounds for eviction available to landlords under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. This will allow the landlord to regain their property when they want to sell it or move into it themselves.

It is important that landlords can have confidence that the court system works for them in instances when there is no other option but to seek possession of their property through the courts. That is why this announcement includes improvements to court processes, to make it quicker and smoother for landlords to regain their properties when they have a legitimate reason to do so.

Removing no-fault evictions is a significant step. This announcement is the start of a longer process to introduce these reforms. We want to build a consensus on a package of reforms to improve security for tenants while providing landlords with the confidence that they have the tools they need.

We will launch a consultation on the details of a better system that will work for landlords and tenants. The Government will collaborate with and listen to landlords, tenants and others in the private rented sector to develop a new deal for renting. Ministers will also work with other types of housing providers outside of the private rented sector who use these powers and use the consultation to make sure the new system works effectively.

[HCWS1514]

Oral Answers to Questions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

1. What financial support the Government are allocating to local authorities to help them prepare for the UK leaving the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

We have made £58 million available to support local authorities’ preparations for Brexit, and £20 million has already been distributed to all local authorities in England to undertake preparatory work, with another £20 million to follow. Also, £3.14 million has been allocated to 19 local authorities facing immediate impacts from ports.

[Tom Brake]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the Select Committee report published last week that highlighted that local authorities should have new burdens funded in full. It also highlighted the fact that port authorities such as Portsmouth needed substantially more than the average of £136,000 that is being granted to ports. Portsmouth would need £4 million in the case of a no-deal scenario. Will the Secretary of State undertake to provide that funding and to reimburse any costs that have been spent on no deal that have proved to be unnecessary?

[James Brokenshire]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s approach, and I am interested in the fact that he is perhaps now interested in delivering Brexit, even though everything he has said thus far suggests that his party is trying to stop it. I take on board what he has said. This is why we have made funding available to ports such as Portsmouth, and discussions have taken place between Portsmouth and the Department for Transport. He also raised the broader issue of support for local authorities, and this is why we remain in close contact with local government and why we still have £10 million available for any immediate pressures that may emerge in the forthcoming year.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

What is all this money for?

[James Brokenshire]

Councils have been preparing for a range of issues. As we leave the European Union, changes to regulations might be required and training and support might be needed, as well as contingency planning so that we have a smooth transition from where we are today to leaving the European Union.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) is another mentee of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne).

[James Brokenshire]

I am interested to hear that response from the Scottish National party. I hope that it will be able to guarantee that all moneys that have been given to Scotland are actually being spent on Brexit preparations. As I understand it, no guarantees on funding have been given to councils. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been in contact with the Electoral Commission in relation to those preparations, but I hope that we will be able to avoid holding European elections.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I hear what the Secretary of State says, but when I talk to my local councils, they seem to have an endless stream of directives coming from the centre but very little guidance as to what to do if significant numbers of their staff suddenly decide to go. What contingency preparations are the Government making to support local councils in the care sector, for instance, if those people suddenly are not here next week?

[James Brokenshire]

I hope I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance in relation to the regular and detailed contact we have had with local councils through the ministerial delivery board, which I chair, and through representatives of local government. We also have regular contact with the nine chief executives around the country. We are giving clear advice to assure EU workers of their ability to stay and information on the settled status scheme that the Home Office has put together.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Cabinet Secretary Michael Russell MSP has confirmed that moneys allocated to Scotland through Barnett consequentials have been distributed primarily to meet the costs of work already being done by local government in Scotland. The Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has said that the UK Government are not giving sufficient support to local government for Brexit. As the chaos of Brexit unfolds and local government continues to identify need, can the Secretary of State confirm whether Westminster will bring forward new moneys to meet that need, because the £10 million that he has mentioned is but a drop in the ocean? Local government and the Scottish Government should not be left out of pocket by the UK Tory Government’s incompetence.

[James Brokenshire]

I am sorry—the hon. Lady has I think set out a request for further funding, but my understanding is only £27 million of the initial £37 million allocated to Scotland was spent, and that none was given to councils. Perhaps she can clarify the priority and intent of the SNP in Scotland to ensure that Scotland is well prepared.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State not understand the scepticism about his comments, not just from the Select Committee but from many Members on both sides of the House? After all, it was his Department that left bidding for Brexit contingency funding to the very last minute, it was his Department that diverted council funding away from some of the most deprived communities in England, and it was his botched announcement on the Stronger Towns fund that has left many of those communities feeling left behind. Can he now, without any spin or bluster, confirm to the House whether the most deprived communities in England will see a share of the shared prosperity fund that, pound for pound, is less than, equal to or greater than the share of the European structural development fund it replaces?

[James Brokenshire]

Before responding to the hon. Gentleman’s question, may I say how pleased I am to hear that his grandson is now recovering and returning to full health? I am sure that the whole House will cherish and treasure the fact that that young child is back on the road to recovery.

The hon. Gentleman highlights broader issues on preparation. I have already underlined the extensive work that we have done with local government. I look forward to consulting on the UK’s shared prosperity fund in detail. Those allocations will be allocated and set out through the spending review. I hope even now that his community will apply for funding through the Stronger Towns fund so that it gets the support it requires.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the Government’s target on building homes for social rent.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

Through the affordable homes programme, Homes England will deliver at least 12,500 social rented homes in areas of affordability pressure by March 2022. That is part of our £9 billion affordable homes programme, which will deliver approximately 250,000 additional affordable homes by March 2022.

[Vicky Foxcroft]

In Lewisham, 625 families are currently housed in temporary accommodation outside the borough, and many are at breaking point, due to having to travel for hours to get to work or school. Having had its budget cut by 60% since 2010, how does the Secretary of State expect Lewisham Council to build the housing we so desperately need?

[James Brokenshire]

By ensuring that the Mayor of London delivers on the £4.8 billion that has been provided to him to build 116,000 affordable homes in London. We have given the Mayor significant funding to deliver on London’s housing agenda. I want to support him and see that happen. Clearly, the responsibility to do so lies with the Mayor.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

17. Does the Secretary of State agree that Barnet Council’s plan to deliver 22,000 new homes by regenerating land that has already been developed is a good way of delivering the homes we need without encroaching on the green belt or green spaces?

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend. Focusing on land that has already been developed, and indeed on brownfield land, rather than green-belt land, will allow us to cherish our green spaces and the natural environment around us.

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

The Secretary of State will have noted that the question is specifically about social rented housing. If we are to achieve an overall target of 300,000 homes a year, does he accept that it is imperative that more than 100,000 of those have to be social rented houses, built by housing associations and councils? Lifting the housing revenue account cap is welcome, but does he accept that if we are to deliver that number of homes, the Government will have to give more financial support to councils and housing associations?

[James Brokenshire]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the £9 billion affordable homes programme, and equally the extra £2 billion that has been provided on long-term funding. He will have noted in the recent spring statement that we now have £3 billion to enable housing associations to have funding guaranteed for the delivery of those homes. I hope that he also recognises that the flexibility of the affordable homes programme allows more homes for every pound of Government investment. Clearly, I want to see more homes built, and I want to see more council homes built for social rent too.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

Three years ago the Mayor of London clearly promised to build 14,000 more low-cost homes every single year, but he has never touched that target. What has gone wrong and what needs to change?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend highlights the need for the Mayor to step up to the mark and ensure that he delivers on the housing agenda in London. I recognise that delivery has increased in recent years, but the latest net additions data for 2017-18 are worrying; London demonstrates a 20% drop, compared with a 2% rise nationwide. I hope that the Mayor will focus broadly on the housing agenda. We are providing support on infrastructure and other aspects to see that London does deliver.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

Does not the evidence suggest that the viability assessment system is suppressing social house building and that it is unnecessary given the high profitability in the development sector?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about viability assessments, which we addressed through the national planning policy framework—effectively the high-level planning guidebook —to provide greater certainty for councils and developers. Such assessments can slow the delivery of housing, which is why we took steps within the NPPF.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Two years ago, the Prime Minister at long last admitted that

“we simply have not given enough attention to social housing”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 169.]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, since the Prime Minister’s admission, his Government have recorded the two worst years for social house building in the 74 years since the second world war?

[James Brokenshire]

What I can confirm is that we have delivered more affordable homes over the past eight years of this Government when compared with the last eight years of the previous Labour Government. Indeed, 407,000 affordable homes have been delivered since 2010, which is 40,000 more than the comparable period under the previous Labour Government.

[John Healey]

What the Secretary of State is doing is not working, which is why we have a housing crisis. One thing that he did not confirm is the hard fact that social house building has hit a record low under this Government’s watch. He told me recently that he has committed to funding only 12,500 new social rented homes over the six years to 2022, which will not even replace the homes lost through sales in the last year alone. This Government are failing on all fronts; we have a crisis with Brexit and a crisis with housing. When will the Government get serious about building the social rented homes that this country needs?

[James Brokenshire]

I can say categorically that this Government are serious about building the homes our country needs. Indeed, that is we why we have committed funding to housing associations and given councils the flexibility to borrow to build. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman when he seeks to compare this Government’s ambition with that of the previous Labour Government. This Government have lifted the cap on council borrowing, and the number of local authority dwellings built under eight years of a Conservative-led Government is over four times the number built under the 13 years of the Labour Government.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What steps he is taking to help ensure that increases in council tax lead to improved local services.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

Local authorities decide council tax levels and are responsible for managing resources to deliver services. The Government set referendum thresholds to protect voters from excessive increases in council taxes without their authorisation. Overall, this year’s settlement gives local authorities access to £46.4 billion.

[Mr Sheerman]

When will this ministerial team wake up to the fact that we do not all live in Maidenhead or the New Forest? The fact is that the central Government grant has been cut and cut again, and we cannot keep on getting more for less. Only this morning, Shabir Pandor, the leader of Kirklees Council, said, “Why doesn’t this Government see local government as an ally, not the enemy?”

[James Brokenshire]

I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the situation. I absolutely see local government as an ally, which is why I have championed its work and what it delivers for local people. I should hope that he notes that Kirklees Council will have access to £302 million in 2019-20. It is also worth highlighting that average spending power per dwelling for the 10% most deprived authorities in 2019-20 will be around 22% more than for the least deprived. It is not right to say that this Government focus on one area over another. We want local government to perform for communities across the country.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a member of Kettering Borough Council. Despite cuts to central Government funding, Kettering council has now frozen its share of council tax all the way through to April 2020—it has been frozen since 2010—while enhancing the delivery of local public services. Does that not show that we do not need to increase council tax to improve the delivery of local public services?

[James Brokenshire]

I commend Kettering Borough Council for the work it is doing, and indeed Conservative councils up and down this country. It is worth highlighting that, on average, Labour councils in England impose bigger council tax increases than Conservative councils, reminding us that you always end up paying more under Labour.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Council tax has increased by a whopping 18% over the past five years, hitting families on lower incomes the hardest, taking 8% of their income compared with just 2% for higher earners. As people are asked to pay more and more for less and less, they will quite rightly look at the likes of Google with its £1.5 billion tax gap—which, by the way, is roughly the equivalent of what the current council tax increase will generate. Whose side are this Government on—hard-working families or the very, very few?

[James Brokenshire]

The Government are on the side of hard-working families. I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the last Labour Government band D council tax more than doubled. It is also worth highlighting that council tax in England is down 6% in real terms since the last Labour Government.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Conservative-controlled West Oxfordshire District Council has one of the lowest council tax rates in the country and some of the best services due to its innovative cost-saving measures. Does that not show that Conservative councils save money on back-office costs and provide better services for local residents?

[James Brokenshire]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s message. I am sure that others outside this place will have heard it, too, as we look towards local council elections, with Conservative councils delivering more for their residents and better value for money.

[Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of new homes for social rent since 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

14. What steps the Government are taking to deliver economic growth through the midlands engine.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

We have confirmed up to £2 million to further the delivery of the east midlands HS2 growth strategy around Toton station. To increase business engagement, we are supporting the midlands engine’s campaign to raise the region’s profile nationally and internationally, and to highlight the economic potential of the midlands.

[Ben Bradley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but local authorities in Mansfield are hoping to secure funding through the future high streets fund to help reinvigorate what was once a thriving town centre. That support would be very welcome, as would the opportunity to access the recently announced stronger towns funding. What will the criteria be for that funding, and will my right hon. Friend commit to working with our local council to give Mansfield the best possible chance of accessing it?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend rightly champions Mansfield, and we will look very closely at the expression of interest that has been expressed in relation to the future high streets fund. The stronger towns fund will support towns to grow and prosper, and we will obviously be working with communities. I can certainly give a commitment to work with him and with Mansfield as we continue to shape that, and get the right feedback to ensure that that money delivers what we want it to.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

18.   Thank you for being so generous, Mr Speaker. Although it is not the midlands engine but the great south west, this question is about economic growth. Some £600 million of economic growth could be delivered from the £95 million forward funding, with a bid just submitted by Somerset County Council that represents great value for money in delivering 10,000 houses. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is indeed a good place for the Government to invest their money and will make a great contribution to our housing targets?

[James Brokenshire]

I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s ingenuity in putting her question. Her council has submitted a £14 million bid to the housing infrastructure fund, which we obviously want to see delivering more homes and building the homes our country needs. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will look carefully at this bid. It is a competitive process, but I am encouraged by what she says.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

15. What steps he is taking to increase the provision of housing in Newcastle.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

Last Wednesday, I joined the New Zealand high commissioner and other hon. Members to remember victims of the Christchurch mosque attack, reaffirming our solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters. As in New Zealand, our diverse communities make us stronger. That is why we will always stand up against hatred, bigotry and extremism. It is also why I have reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to the holocaust memorial and learning centre next door to Parliament. I met holocaust survivors last week to set out more details of the plan for that.

On a very different note, the issue of tree netting on development sites and its impact on wild birds has caused concern across the House. That is why I have written to developers today to underline their responsibilities to protect wildlife and to ensure that netting is kept to an absolute minimum.

[John Grogan]

May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about New Zealand? We had a similar remembrance event in Keighley only yesterday.

Will the Secretary of State carefully consider the compromise proposals for Yorkshire devolution, as put forward by the mayor of South Yorkshire, for the period to 2022? Will he also consider the request from the councils in the Leeds city region to extend their devolution deals for that period?

[James Brokenshire]

I will look and am looking carefully at the submissions that have been made. I want to see greater devolution across Yorkshire. I recognise Yorkshire’s ambition to have those powers transferred down and I look forward to continuing discussions with the hon. Gentleman and others on how best that can be advanced.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

T3. I thank my right hon. Friend for meeting me to discuss permitted development rights, but does he not agree that the policy has not worked? It has allowed landlords to build ghettos and London councillors to socially cleanse their most vulnerable families to places such as Harlow, yet we have not been given the resources to deal with the extra burden. Will he look at that and change the rules?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for highlighting this issue, which he and I met and discussed directly. He knows that we made a commitment in the recent spring statement to examine permitted development rights in relation to the conversion of office to residential property, but I am content to look more broadly at where the burden lies with some of these transfers, because it is important that we get this right.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

First, may I say that my thoughts are with those affected by the Clutha helicopter crash? The fatal accident inquiry is starting in Glasgow today.

The UK Government’s shared prosperity fund is still something of a mystery box. We do not know how much will be in it, who is going to administer it or what its priorities will be. Will the Secretary of State commit today that the Scottish Government will get to control the fund and that Scotland will not get one penny less than we would have received under EU funding?

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly agree with the hon. Lady about the need to ensure that the UK shared prosperity fund works for all parts of our United Kingdom, and we will certainly work with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations on the preparation for that and in advance of the spending review.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

T4. New homes need new infrastructure. The housing infrastructure fund bid for Chelmsford’s second railway station and bypass will unlock over 10,000 new homes, so may I urge my right hon. Friend to back the bid? Otherwise I will keep on nagging him until he does.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

New figures today show that 40,000 people are still trapped in privately owned blocks wrapped in Grenfell-style aluminium composite material cladding. That is 40,000 lives on hold—weddings cancelled, mental ill-health rife—because people are trapped in properties that cannot be sold. The Prime Minister repeatedly said that she rules nothing out, so when will the Government finally say, “Enough is enough,” set up a loan fund for private blocks and get the job done?

[James Brokenshire]

I firmly recognise the stress, strain and anguish that so many people continue to live with as a consequence of ACM cladding on the outside of a number of these blocks. A growing list of companies, such as Barratt, Mace and Legal & General, are doing the right thing and taking responsibility. In addition, warranty providers have accepted claims on a number of buildings. I urge all owners and developers to follow the lead of those companies and step up to make sure this work is done. This is a priority for me; I know the work needs to be advanced more quickly, and I am considering all other options if it is not.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

T5.   Mr Speaker, I declare my interest as a member of Kettering Borough Council. When will the Secretary of State lay the structural changes order for new unitary councils in Northamptonshire?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Further to earlier answers about the housing ombudsman scheme, there is considerable consumer scepticism that the scheme will not end up being industry-driven and will favour house developers rather than buyers. What assurances can Ministers give us that it will be consumer-led and that consumers will have input into the consultation?

[James Brokenshire]

I firmly recognise the consumer interest. That is what motivated me to put an ombudsman in place. I want the ombudsman to first be established in a shadow format, leading into the statutory ombudsman scheme I want to create, so we create some momentum and give a sense of confidence to consumers.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Lack of knowledge of the armed forces covenant and of joined-up working in some cases is one of the key barriers to veterans getting the help that they need. What more can we do to increase joined-up working and awareness?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sheerman]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—very ageist, but welcome anyway. One of the worst things for people who have a house is the house next door being empty, derelict and lost. What progress are we making to identify empty, unused houses given there is such great scarcity? Is it compulsory purchases? How can we unlock these houses as a resource?

[James Brokenshire]

I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman. The number of long-term empty homes is down by nearly a third since 2010, but it is important that we take further action. That is why we introduced the empty homes premium in 2013, which gives councils the option to increase the premium from 50% to 100% of nominal council tax, and we are seeing that increase this month. We acknowledge the important point he makes about empty homes.

Leasehold Market Reform

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

The Government are committed to tackling unfair practices in the leasehold market and to promoting transparency and fairness for leaseholders.

It is vital that we have a leasehold market that is transparent, fair and affordable for all those involved; where people know in advance what they are going to have to pay, are not saddled with mounting or unaffordable costs and are able to challenge fees if they feel they are unjustified or unfair.

Today I am announcing a package of measures to further support existing as well as future owners of leasehold homes.

This includes clamping down on unjustified legal costs for leaseholders, an industry pledge to tackle doubling ground rent charges and reforms to provide greater consumer protections and transparency around the use of event fees in retirement leasehold properties.

Under current rules, leaseholders may be liable to pay the legal costs of their landlord regardless of the outcome of a legal challenge. This has led to cases of leaseholders being forced to pay tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees, even when the court or tribunal has found in their favour. This can lead to leaseholders facing higher bills than the charges they were seeking to challenge in the first place. It can also deter leaseholders from taking their concerns to a tribunal.

We will bring forward legislation to close these legal loopholes that allow freeholders to unjustifiably recoup legal costs from leaseholders.

I am also pleased to unveil industry’s leaseholder pledge, which we have worked on closely with them. This will mean that developers, freeholders, lawyers and managing agents are committing to taking steps to help leaseholders, especially those who are affected by rapidly doubling ground rents. I would like to take this opportunity to commend all those who have already signed up, and to urge those who have yet to do so to do the right thing. We expect all those who are involved to help put right problems for people who are affected.

Today I am also announcing the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s 2017 report on “Event Fees in Retirement Properties”.

Implementation of these recommendations will help older people and their families to be better protected from hidden costs and unfair fees charged in some leasehold retirement properties, where owners are required to pay an event fee on certain events, such as sale, sub-letting or change of occupancy. A new statutory code of practice will ensure that these fees cannot be charged unexpectedly, while fees that breach it will be regarded as unenforceable. Developers and estate agents will be required to make all such fees crystal clear to people before they buy, so prospective buyers can make an informed decision before forming a financial or emotional attachment to a property.

I am committed to reforming the leasehold market so that it is fit for purpose and works for everyone and today’s package of reforms builds on our wider leasehold reform programme to reaffirm this commitment.

[HCWS1466]

Troubled Families Annual Report

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

As required by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, section 3(1), my Department has published the third annual report, setting out how the troubled families programme (2015-2020) has been supporting disadvantaged families. We are laying this report today and will place a copy in the House of Commons Library.

This notice details what the report covers, for the period up to the end of March 2019, as well as for the next financial year, including setting out which families are eligible for the programme and how the progress of families will be measured.

“Building Resilient Families: Third annual report of the troubled families programme 2018-19” details how the programme is spreading whole family working across local services so more families get access to the early, practical and co-ordinated support they need to overcome their complex problems.

This programme of whole family working has achieved significant progress over the past 12 months:

Local authorities have been funded to work in a whole family way with 380,426 families in most need of help as part of the programme. However, we know that local authorities are working in a whole family way with a far greater number of families.

Some 171,890 families have achieved significant and sustained progress against the problems that were identified when they entered the programme. This is up 79,645 on the previous year.

Of all families worked with since the beginning of the programme, in 20,366 families one or more adults have succeeded in moving into continuous employment. An increase of 6,459 since last year.

When compared to a matched comparison group, the programme of targeted intervention was found to have:

reduced the proportion of children on the programme going into care by a third;

reduced the proportion of adults on the programme going to prison by a quarter and juvenile convictions by 15%;

supported more people on the programme back in work with 10% fewer people claiming jobseekers allowance.

Families classed as “relevant households” on the programme, as defined by section 3 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, are tackling at least two of the following challenges:

Parents or children involved in crime or anti-social behaviour;

Children who are not attending school regularly;

Children who need help; that is children of all ages who need help, are identified as in need or are subject to a child protection plan;

Adults out of work or at risk of financial exclusion or young people at risk of worklessness;

Families affected by domestic violence and abuse;

Parents or children with a range of physical and mental health problems.

The rationale for these eligibility criteria and an explanation of the way in which local authorities should identify families using a range of indicators, suggested referral routes and information sources were set out in the refreshed version of the financial framework, published on 8 December 2017. The financial framework also sets out how the progress of families supported will be measured.

[HCWS1464]

Planning Applications: Call-in

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

As Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, I have the power to “call in” planning applications, rather than them being left to local planning authorities to determine.

Parliament has entrusted local planning authorities with the responsibility for day-to-day planning decisions in their areas and they should, in general, be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference and delay. For this reason, successive Governments have been very selective about calling in planning applications. While the call-in power under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives me a wide discretion, it is clear that, in practice, call-in is the exception rather than the rule. Over the past 10 years, called-in planning applications have averaged just 21 per year from the annual average of 480,000 applications received by local councils—that is around one in every 23,000.

On 12 December 2001, the then Government announced that they would, from that date, give reasons for decisions not to call in planning applications. Following a review of the call-in process in 2010, a subsequent statement made on 26 October 2012 reconfirmed that the Secretary of State would continue to be very selective about calling in planning applications and would only consider the use of his call-in power if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. However, the statement of 12 December 2001 about giving reasons for not calling in planning applications was not formally withdrawn.

Having regard to the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Save Britain’s Heritage v. the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, I have concluded that I need to address directly whether this Government should be bound by a commitment given by a previous Government. This Government fully support the need to be transparent and open in their decision making, and acknowledge the rationale behind the 2001 statement, but a decision on whether to call in a planning application, or not to do so, is inherently about process and not the merits of the application. I am concerned that to give reasons in either eventuality risks blurring this distinction and, as there is no duty in this respect, I will call in those applications where I conclude that such a decision needs to be taken by me and I will not call in applications where I conclude that the decision is best left with the local planning authority.

Therefore, so that my position is clear, I am announcing today that the policy set out in the statement of 12 December 2001 is hereby withdrawn and that, from today, I will not give reasons for calling in or declining to call in planning applications. The call-in policy set out in the statement of 26 October 2012 remains in place.

[HCWS1452]