Govia Thameslink/Rail Electrification

Maria Caulfield Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

I have already addressed the issue of the trans-Pennine route upgrade. We await Network Rail’s final project plan for how to make the best use of the £2.9 billion the Government have set aside for it. It is a significant investment, and it is entirely right that the Government seek to secure the best value for money, both for passengers and for taxpayers.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

I get no sense of urgency from the Minister about the devastating impact this is having on my constituents. The timetable changes will see a reduction in services for passengers in Plumpton, Lewes, Seaford, Berwick, Polegate and Wivelsfield, and since the disaster of the timetable roll-out, we are constantly seeing short-formed trains—which are severely overcrowded, station-skipping in rural areas, where there is no other form of public transport, leaving vulnerable passengers, young people and people with a disability stranded—and late-night cancellations. It took three hours to travel 50 miles home last night, and three out of the first seven trains were cancelled this morning. This is unacceptable. The franchise must go.

[Joseph Johnson]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of her constituents, and has done consistently. We are looking at this as a matter of urgency. It is the Department’s top priority to ensure that the unacceptable level of service comes to an end and that passengers get the standard of rail they have every right to expect. The Secretary of State has been absolutely clear that all options are available to him should GTR be found to have been negligent with respect to its contractual obligations.

Tenant Fees Bill (Second sitting)

Maria Caulfield Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 7th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Jones]

Q For my final question I just want to change the subject. We will look today at the deposit element of this proposed legislation. There has been quite a debate on what level of deposit is fair, in terms of what people can afford and what is fair for the landlord to be able to hold. Do you have any views on what that level should be, whether it should be three, four, five or six weeks’ rent, or something else?

Alex McKeown: I certainly think the maximum should be six weeks, which it is at the moment. That has been the norm within the industry. I know that Citizens Advice—the CAB—and others that have given evidence want it brought down to at least five weeks. I understand some of their arguments for that, but to be honest with you, that has not been my main focus.

Councillor Blackburn: I do not have a view.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Q I want to touch on the point you made about the requirement in the Bill of proof to a criminal standard and how difficult that will be. Do you have any suggestions for how the Bill could be formed to allow enforcement to happen relatively easily and effectively?

Alex McKeown: I think it needs to be more similar to the redress scheme for letting agents and property managers in the Consumer Rights Act, because that is a fairly simple process. You get the evidence, you issue the notice of intent, they make representations, you then issue a final notice and it goes to the tribunal. That process has worked very well. We obviously get some random judgments coming out of the tribunals, but that is a better way of doing it.

The only issue we have found is that you will get a large fine against a company—such as the £30,000 fine—and they will then fold their company and phoenix. That is where we may need to look at holding the directors themselves liable. That will assist trading standards in getting the money back.

[Maria Caulfield]

Q That is very helpful. In terms of the bands having clear and unambiguous definitions, particularly around the default fees, are you saying that in the Bill itself and its schedules, there is not enough detail to be able to uphold that?

Alex McKeown: On the default fees?

[Maria Caulfield]

Yes.

Alex McKeown: Yes. I have not looked closely at that, but I know that, again, the CAB has written an amendment on the default fees aspect, to try to make that clearer. At the moment it is quite vague. That does need to be tightened up.

[Maria Caulfield]

Q As a trading standards officer, as the Bill stands would that be difficult to—

Alex McKeown: To prove beyond all reasonable doubt? Yes, I think so.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Q I want to pick up on the point in the evidence from the CTSI about the rise of alternative business models—certainly in my city, and I also did some work with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) in Blackpool on this issue. I just wonder whether you feel that the Bill as it is currently framed would deal with some of those issues, or whether there is a danger that people might move to using some of those platforms to evade the focus of the Bill.

Alex McKeown: The alternative business model is often rogue agents trying to avoid protecting deposits, to avoid giving legal agreements and, in time, to charge the tenant fees. That is also why I feel the burden of proof needs to be back down to the civil burden of proof. It will be difficult to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that somebody is a letting agent and not a membership club. You can see the evidence we need to prove it from the legislation that relates to the membership clubs, and from some of the legal precedents about what constitutes an assured shorthold tenancy.

To give an example, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets took a letting agent to court that said, “We don’t have to join a redress scheme, because we’re not a letting agent, because we only issue a licence to occupy.” The London Borough of Tower Hamlets then had to go into housing law and ask, “Is this tenancy a licence to occupy or an assured shorthold tenancy?” The judge in that tribunal case said, “On the balance of probability, you are a letting agent and should be a member of a scheme.”

That is what we need for the alternative business models. We need to able to prove that, on the balance of probability, they are not membership clubs, the agreements they are giving out are tenancies, and the fees they are charging will be prohibited fees.

Tenant Fees Bill (Third sitting)

Maria Caulfield Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 7th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Melanie Onn]

I disagree. The principle aim of the proposed legislation is to limit the unfair, up-front costs that make it much more difficult. We know that young people make up the bulk of the sector at the moment, and that is only set to grow. Moreover, in general—I accept that this is not always the case—those young people will be on lower wages, so such deposits are an unnecessary barrier to people in that age bracket being able to obtain the property that they desire to become their home.

My concern relates to the abuse of those holding deposits. When this matter was discussed in the Select Committee, there was a suggestion that tenants seeking a property were putting down multiple holding deposits so that they could play a game of which property they were going to choose, as if individuals have so much money that they are able to put down multiple holding deposits. I have not seen the evidence for that.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

It was my understanding, listening to the witnesses this morning, that they all agreed in principle with holding deposits. They saw a need for them. They might have concerns about how that mechanism is used, but I heard them speak in support of holding deposits in principle.

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Lady’s point that the witnesses had concerns about how holding deposits would be used is exactly why I am raising this matter. The aim of the proposed legislation is to make things fairer and easier for tenants. The suggestion has been that tenants are somehow playing a system or a game—

Tenant Fees Bill (First sitting)

Maria Caulfield Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 5th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Melanie Onn]

Q In relation to tenant fees, given that is what we are here to discuss. I am not allowed to go outside the scope of that.

Richard Lambert: Housing is a devolved issue, and therefore it is for the individual countries of the UK to decide their situations.

David Smith: I appreciate that there is a great attraction in comparing Scotland with England, but the markets are enormously different. Outside the main cities in Scotland, the vast majority of letting and estate agents are co-located with solicitors, so the economics of the business is totally different. Inside the cities, it is a bit more like it is in England and Wales, but the size of the market is tiny by comparison and I am not convinced that it is a particularly good comparator. You might do better by comparing with the Irish Republic, which is of a similar size and has much more similar economic structures in some way. I see your point, and I do not think you are necessarily wrong, but I do not think it is as simple as a direct comparison between the two—sorry.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Q On the issue of enforcement, I have been working closely with my local citizens advice bureau in Lewes, which has done a huge amount of work on this. The current system does not work because it is up to local authorities to enforce it, and tenants often do not realise that there are fees that have to be paid, and that on the same high street those fees could vary from hundreds to, in some cases in my constituency, thousands of pounds, and that letting agents are supposed to publish those fees.

So, currently, the enforcement system is not working. Is it not right that if fees are banned, tenants will be able to self-enforce, because they will be aware that no fees should be charged? Do you not recognise that this would give more power to tenants in the process, given that currently they are not able to make those decisions?

David Smith: But why? There is no mechanism within this Bill for tenants to self-enforce.

[Maria Caulfield]

Q There is, because it will be very clear that these fees will be banned.

David Smith: But they are still reliant on the local authority taking up the cudgels on their behalf, which evidence shows that at the moment they do not do.

[Maria Caulfield]

Q But do you not recognise that that gives power back to the tenants? They can then question letting agents as to why fees are being charged. Currently they do not have the information to be able to do that.

Richard Lambert: There is a level of lack of understanding amongst many tenants, in that often they will find themselves handing over money that they discover is for fees when they thought it was for a deposit. The agent will give them an explanation as to why they are being asked to pay something over, and will then change the story later on.

If an agent is exploiting the opportunity, inevitably tenants will fall into that. We do still find that many people who go looking for rented property simply are not aware of the legislation and the protections that they already have. We, as an organisation, have actively gone to local authorities and said, “We have walked down the high street and counted up the number of agents who are not displaying their fees. We think that you could probably collect enough fines over a space of two hours to fund your activity enforcing this regulation for the rest of the year.” The reluctance is to do it in the first place, because the response is always, “We don’t have the resources to do that in the first place.”

David Smith: Every time I go and see a local authority councillor I always bring them at least one example of an agent in their area who is illegally charging fees or breaking the law in some way. I do it consistently.

[Maria Caulfield]

Q Do you not welcome the Bill, then, in that it will make it very clear to tenants that there should not be fees being charged in the first place? They can then make that decision for themselves.

David Smith: But there are scenarios in which the Bill allows the charging of fees. It allows the charging of fees provided they are optional, for example. It is not an outright ban on fees; it is a partial ban on fees. There are circumstances where fees are chargeable, where they are optional. And you are relying on tenants actually finding out about their rights. Unfortunately, at the moment most tenants are grossly unaware of their rights, and will remain so.

[Maria Caulfield]

Q Do you not recognise that the Bill would improve that situation?

Richard Lambert: The Bill will make the situation clear for the majority but, again, there will be a minority of tenants who will not be fully aware of their rights, and there will be a minority of agents who will continue to try to exploit the situation. The only way to deal with that is with effective enforcement. In the first instance, effective enforcement needs to be properly resourced. Once you have that kick-start, the fines generated and the authorities’ ability to attain the proceeds from those fines will mean that they can continue to resource it. You have to have the initial resource to make that enforcement effective, otherwise you are simply passing the legislation, and it is not being policed.

David Smith: More to the point, it would be the weakest and most vulnerable tenants being exploited by the agents, as it is now.

[Maria Caulfield]

Q I just have a quick question on default fees. Will you set out your views on default fees, and why they are necessary? I recognise that there are tenants who often leave properties in a state in which they did not find them. How often, in your experience, are default fees payable? What percentage of tenants would this apply to?

Richard Lambert: I wouldn’t know.

David Smith: We don’t have data. The continuing use of the phrase “default fees” misrepresents what is going on here. David Cox gave one of the best examples: that of a tenant who loses their keys and expects the agent to go over at midnight. “Default fees” is shorthand for a mechanism that exists in almost every commercial contract.

[Maria Caulfield]

So businessmen like you don’t know how often default fees are applied, as it stands.

David Smith: At the moment, quite a lot of agents put default fees into their agreements, but they are very rarely charged. In practice, they are mostly taken out of the tenant’s deposit. In many cases there is no deposit left to take. Most agents do not bother.

Richard Lambert: I think for self-managing landlords, it depends whether you have just one incidence of this. Let’s stay with the example of somebody locking themselves out, forgetting their keys and coming home from a night out at 2 am and being unable to get in. They ring the landlord and ask them to bring a key round. The landlord will usually complain and possibly do it once. If they find that it is happening two or three times then they will start to say, “Well actually, I am going to charge for my time involved in getting up in the middle of the night, coming over and letting you in.” If there is more of an issue and the landlord has to engage a locksmith, that could involve a charge of £150 or £200 in London. They will want to try and recover that kind of fee. With self-managing landlords where the relationship is directly with the tenant, there is a level of give and take initially, but then if it is a continuing problem or if there are several incidents then, yes, they will do something.

[Maria Caulfield]

Q So is there a need to have default fees within this Bill?

Richard Lambert: I think there is.

David Smith: Landlords are always entitled to recover their costs from a tenant’s breach of contract. A default fee is actually where the parties pre-agree what the level of that fee should be, creating a degree of certainty between them so that tenants are going to know that they will have to pay this amount and this amount only, whatever the actual cost of, say, a locksmith. There is a benefit to having a fixed tariff of fees for particular contractual breaches. It is a commonly used mechanism across a wide range of contracts.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

Q May I just ask for information? Obviously we accept that the majority of landlords are good landlords and do the right thing. You talk about exploitation, variation and some egregious levels of charging, and some exploitation of people. Would you describe what evidence there is as to the numbers of good agents versus bad agents, and good landlords versus bad landlords? We talk about the bogus ones who are charging people but is there evidence of the number, or of where they tend to be? Do they tend to be the bigger ones or smaller ones? Are they in cities or in rural areas? What do we know?

Richard Lambert: It is almost impossible to identify that. Those kinds of landlords and agents do not self-identify, by definition. Somebody once said to me, “The worst tenants tend to gravitate towards the worst landlords.” Often, those kinds of landlords will be housing people with chaotic and vulnerable lives who find it difficult to go anywhere else, or people who may be on the verges of criminality. Quite often, you find that the actual accommodation provision is a sideline of a wider organised criminal activity, and it is a part of something that will involve people trafficking, prostitution, drugs, money laundering and so on. The letting of the property is simply a factor: they need somewhere to house the people.

David Smith: The only way to clarify that would be to look at the number of landlords prosecuted as a percentage of the overall number of landlords. However, the problem with that as a measure is that enforcement is so poor.

Tenant Fees Bill

Maria Caulfield Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

We intend to provide guidance on those issues. I do not accept that that would automatically be the situation. It is why we have taken the steps that we have in considering what the right action should be in setting a number of these issues. It is important to recognise that the Bill proposes a number of enforcement measures that offer a strong deterrent to irresponsible agents and landlords, and in doing so protects tenants.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that this is very much a geographical issue? In London and the south-east, tenants have really suffered at the hands of lettings agents and their fees. Tenants can pay anything from £175 to £900 just in fees alone. My local citizens advice bureau in Lewes found that on average tenants are paying, for eight weeks’ deposit, nearly £4,000 in advance. This is a real problem for London and the south-east.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend highlights the issues that go to the heart of the Bill—that is why I hope that it will command broad support across the House.

The Bill places a duty on trading standards authorities to enforce the measures it contains. It also makes provision to enable tenants and other relevant people to recover unlawfully charged fees. It prevents landlords from recovering their property, via the section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 procedure, until they have repaid any unlawfully charged fees. A breach of the fees ban will usually be a civil offence, with a financial penalty of £5,000. However, if a further breach is committed within five years this will amount to a criminal offence. In such a case, local authorities will have discretion about whether to prosecute or impose a financial penalty. Guidance on that will be issued. They may impose a financial penalty of up to £30,000 as an alternative to prosecution. Local authorities will be able to retain funds raised through financial penalties, with the money reserved for future local housing enforcement.

Finally, the Bill makes provision for a lead enforcement authority to provide oversight, guidance and support, with the enforcement of requirements on letting agents. This includes the ban on letting fees and related provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

On 3 May 2016, I led an Adjournment debate in which I called for a cap on letting agents’ fees, because they were becoming such a big issue in my constituency. I therefore welcome the Bill, which goes even further.

This issue particularly affects London and the south-east. In my constituency, rent for an average property is close to £2,000 a month. I have worked closely with the citizens advice bureau in Lewes, and it has done a lot of work on this issue. It highlighted how letting agents fees in one of the four towns in my constituency can range from £175 to £922. Coupled with an eight-week deposit, which is standard in Lewes, that can leave tenants paying anything from £3,332 to £3,779. It is just not affordable for someone on the average wage. I was therefore pleased to see in schedule 1 that the deposit is going to be limited to six weeks.

I have two key concerns. The first is about the variety of fees listed in schedule 1. Although the Bill covers holding payments and deposits, several fees that letting agents have introduced will get around the legislation. Citizens advice in Lewes found that people can be charged around £450 to add a second tenant to a property. A reference check can cost £100, as can general admin. An “express move”—to move within 10 days—can cost around £200, and it can cost another £200 to keep a pet in a property. If a tenant moves out and someone takes over the lease, that costs £300 on average. Some Members have already mentioned the six-month tenancy. Tenants often want a longer lease, to which they are legally entitled, but are not allowed to contact the landlord to negotiate one, because it is in the letting agents’ interest to keep tenants on a rolling six-month tenancy, paying around £150 to £350 every time they renew their lease.

My other concern is enforcement and schedule 3. It is a legal requirement for letting agents to advertise their fees, but it just does not happen and is not enforced. Citizens advice looked at 25 letting agents in Lewes and Seaford. Only one currently advertises its fees. We have legislation and it is not being enforced. I am not clear from schedule 3 who is responsible for the enforcement of the legislation and what happens if they do not do it. I welcome the Bill, but I have those two concerns—the variety of fees not covered, and enforcement to ensure that the Bill works properly for tenants.

Anti-Semitism

Maria Caulfield Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

I am not an expert in these matters, but I was incredibly moved when I went to Israel for the first time 18 months ago and visited Yad Vashem, the world’s holocaust remembrance centre, and saw at first hand the evidence of the experience of the Jewish people before and during the holocaust, and of the survivors afterwards. I was especially moved by the testament of British soldiers who were joyful at the end of the second world war but absolutely crushed within hours to discover concentration camps where there were mass graves, people on the edge of starvation, and gas chambers.

It is our duty now to speak out about anti-Semitism to make sure that that never happens again, because the lessons of history tell us that the start of an increase in anti-Semitism is a slippery slope. As philosophers have said for many years, unless we learn the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat them. It is no coincidence that not just in the holocaust but in multiple genocides that have happened since, such as Rwanda and Srebrenica, and what is happening with the Rohingya and Yazidi peoples now, there is a cycle of behaviour and a pattern of events that warn us that more is to come.

If we facilitate anti-Semitism, then we are on a slippery slope. We know from the CST that anti-Semitic attacks are increasing in this country. There are now, on average, four attacks a day on Jewish people. There is a 3% increase in such events on last year. There is a 34% increase in violent assaults—the highest tally since 1984. That tells us that something is happening in this country, and there is a duty on all of us to speak out. If we look back at the 1920s and ’30s in Europe, we see that that is exactly what was happening then, when synagogues were being deconsecrated, Jewish people were being attacked, and murals were being painted on walls. Is this ringing any alarm bells with people in this Chamber?

I might be accused of overreacting, but history tells us where the direction of travel is going. When we are seeing the democratic process in this country being used to legitimise anti-Semitism, with people who are clearly anti-Semitic being put up for elections, history tells us that we are on a slippery slope. The seeds are being sown now, and this country is in grave danger if we do not speak out. We have a duty not just to speak out but to support those who speak out and are being persecuted as a result. If we think the holocaust could not happen in this country now or at any time in the future, we must think again. It happened, post the war to end all wars, in the best educated country in Europe. It happened then, and now, not through a mass violent struggle but through subtle levels of anti-Semitism, it could happen again.

Local Government Funding

Maria Caulfield Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Stevenson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Gwynne]

No, I will make a bit of progress. [Interruption.] I have taken three or four interventions already and I am only on page two of my speech. A little bit of patience is perhaps needed from Government Members.

The fact is that for politicians of all political persuasions and none in local government, the sense of pride and responsibility is why many of us came into politics—to make our world a better place for the people we grew up with, our neighbours, our family and our local communities. It is therefore saddening that this debate is even needed today.

[Maria Caulfield]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will just move on. The fact is that since 2010, local government has borne the brunt of the public spending cuts. Since 2010, 49.1% of central Government funding has been cut from local government—[Interruption.] It is interesting that the Parliamentary Private Secretary is giving his Back Benchers cue cards and whispering in their ears about what to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) is right that these cuts have gone far too far. Many of my constituents, though, will not forgive the Liberal Democrats for the part they played in pushing through the deepest austerity in the coalition Government. Many of those hard choices have resulted in some of the increases in demand that we are now seeing, particularly in children’s services and adult social care.

[Maria Caulfield]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will.

[Maria Caulfield]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is very generous. I understand his call for more funding for local government, but can he explain why Labour Members voted against the local government finance settlement, which gave councils more money?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Because it is a fact that the local government finance settlement went nowhere near the gaps that have been created by the hon. Lady’s party in local government. We do not support ongoing austerity. We want to ensure that we reinvest in our public services, and that is why I hope she will join us in the Lobby tonight. If she believes in defending public services and wants to see more money for our local councils, she can support our motion tonight, and I look forward to her being in our Lobby.

House building has fallen to its lowest rate since the 1920s and homelessness is rising. The number of people sleeping rough on our streets has more than doubled since 2010—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State can chunter, but I do not think that doubling the number of rough sleepers is a record for the Housing Secretary to be proud of. Older people are not living with the dignity and comfort that they deserve because of the cuts to social care. The outsourcing of public services has led to one scandal after another, and the collapse of private outsourcing companies such as Carillion has put services at further risk. Demand for children’s services is placing growing pressure on all councils. Central Government funding to support children and their families has been cut by 55% since the Conservatives came to office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

I share the hon. Lady’s concern about the rise in homelessness. It is almost 50% lower than it was at its peak in 2003, but it is still too high, and she is right to point out that it has been rising. All hon. Members should be concerned about that. This is why it is important that we should continue to help those programmes that can prevent homelessness and those that can help those who find themselves in that difficult situation. She might be pleased to know that a recent pilot in Southwark of some of the measures that will be put in place across the country in April as a result of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which had cross-party support, has resulted in a one-third fall in homelessness acceptances. I hope that those are the kinds of measures that we can all support.

[Maria Caulfield]

I tried to intervene on the shadow Secretary of State earlier to ask about Labour’s proposals to raise money for local councils through a land value tax, which is also known as a garden tax. Such a tax would see families whose properties were worth £300,000 paying an average of £4,500 a year. What is the Secretary of State’s view on those proposals?

[Sajid Javid]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that point. A moment ago, I talked about how Labour had brought our country to the brink of bankruptcy and how, given the chance, it would do it all over again. She has just illustrated that point. All that Labour knows is borrow, borrow, borrow and spend, spend, spend, and it wants hard-pressed taxpayers to pick up the bill. She mentioned Labour’s garden tax. It is interesting that the shadow Secretary of State did not want to dwell on that, but it appeared in Labour’s 2017 manifesto, and it was calculated at the time that it could result in a charge of £3,700 a year for the average home, which is roughly £2,000 more than the current band D council tax. That reminds me that the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) was recently sacked from the shadow Front Bench for exposing Labour’s plans to double council tax. So the facts are out there, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, but is it not ironic that the very Members who called for this debate are those who voted against a real-terms increase for local councils in the local government funding settlement?

Let us look at some of the multitude of reasons why councils have tough funding decisions to make. East Sussex County Council, which covers my constituency, is a rural authority, and rural authorities have been significantly underfunded for decades compared with urban areas, something which was never addressed by the previous Labour Government. Rural authorities such as East Sussex receive 45% less funding per head of population. They get 41% less police grant and 32.4% less fire authority grant than urban areas. That is something that was never tackled under Labour but which this Government are looking at.

On need, East Sussex has the highest number of 85-year-olds in the country, and that puts pressure on our adult social care. The House should not be misled by southern areas being comparatively rich. I have some of the most deprived coastal regions in the country, with people earning 85% less than those in urban areas. There is real deprivation and real need in those areas, and the Government have come up with a solution. There will be an increase in the rural services delivery grant in 2018-19, meaning an overall increase of £81 million. That is the highest ever increase, delivered by a Conservative Government. The fair funding review is long overdue, and Labour Members should ask themselves why they did not do it when they were in government.

It is not just about the money that is being given; it is about the use of the funds that are available. When I talk to my constituents, they say that they want their local councils to deliver social services, to collect the bins, to build more housing, to fix the potholes and to get the schools into good and outstanding ratings, but let us look at what some Labour councils are delivering.

Bradford City Council recently spent £1.2 million on a swimming pool strategy that was ditched at the last minute, and it spent £15,000 on a new statue for the town centre. When Northumberland County Council was under Labour administration, it gave £1 million via its property development arm to Ashington football club, which was unearthed only when the Tories took over control last year.

We need to hold councils to account for the money that they spend, but it is not just money spent on pet projects that is often wasted. Figures revealed by the TaxPayers Alliance show that 539 senior council executives across the country earn more than the Prime Minister, and 2,314 senior council executives are on more than £100,000 a year— an 11% increase. Of the 10 councils that pay their executives the most, 70% are Labour controlled. Those councils are paying between £350,000 and £650,000 a year per post, which tells us where the money is being spent.

I welcome the increase in local government funding, but let us look at the record of Opposition Members. They voted against 60,000 young first-time buyers being exempted from stamp duty. Last week, they voted against 50,000 young children getting access to free school meals and, once again, we have seen them vote against councils getting more funding. Their actions speak louder than their words.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank all Members who have participated in this debate. It is fair to say that local government finance is not always the thing that enthuses people, but what we have learned today is that finance is there for a purpose: to deliver essential public services—or, in the words of the Secretary of State, “vital services on which we all depend.” To be fair though, that is probably where the Secretary of State’s understanding ends. He gets the principle, but not the true impact of austerity.

The best preparation for this debate would have been completely wasted because it would have missed the gift that keeps on giving, which is that the Secretary of State’s testbed for local government seems to be the sinking of the Titanic—a vessel that went out 106 years ago not fit for the journey ahead, without enough life rafts for the people on it and completely misunderstanding that there was an iceberg ahead and the damage that it would cause. Now, Northamptonshire might be the tip of the iceberg in local government terms, but the truth is that many councils are really struggling beneath the surface.

We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Reading East (Matt Rodda), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel). The thing that ran through all those contributions was the human and community cost of taking money from public services. We hear that 64% of the Government grant has been taken away in Liverpool. That is not just a number on a balance sheet. It was money for essential services that existed to support a community that needed support to grow, develop and prosper. But that rug has been completely pulled from under the people of Liverpool.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East that local councils have very little clarity about what is heading towards them beyond 2020. It is true that many came forward as part of the multi-year settlement, but it is also true that the fair funding settlement is sending shivers down the spine of many local councils because they know exactly what it means. We saw it with the deletion of the area-based grant in 2010, when money directed at areas of high deprivation was completely taken away. Over recent years, the introduction of the transition grant and the rural services delivery grant have targeted mainly Tory shires. We know what fair funding really means to the Government.

[Maria Caulfield]

I have to disagree. As I said in my speech, rural areas have had 45% less funding per head of population for decades. The rural services delivery grant goes some way, although not all the way, to redressing that balance.

[Jim McMahon]

Well, actually, it does not. I will give the hon. Lady an example. If a county area that had a strong council tax base was given £1 in central Government funding and 90p of that £1 was taken away, the area was treated favourably in the transition grant and the rural services delivery grant. If a metropolitan area had £100 and £50 was taken away, far more money that was delivering public services in that area has been taken away—£50 versus the 90p taken from the rural area—because the starting point is very different.

We cannot compare an area with a strong council tax base of high-value properties due to the way in which that area has developed historically—nothing to do with the local authority—with a post-industrial town where the council tax base is predicated on low house values. In my area, 87% of properties are in band A and band B, so there is a very low starting point. That is why far more is needed in council tax from those areas to generate the same amount of money.

[Maria Caulfield]

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous in giving way. Perhaps he should come to see the areas of deprivation in Newhaven in my constituency. There are no high-cost properties there. Perhaps he needs to look at rural areas in the round.

[Jim McMahon]

This ought not to be a fight between areas of high deprivation in our urban core and recognising that some services cost more to deliver in rural areas. Labour is calling for a genuinely fair funding settlement that would take into account deprivation, differential service delivery costs and the very particular circumstances of our coastal communities, which feel very much left behind. But we have no faith at all that that is where the Government are going. The Government are trying to redistribute a diminishing resource; we are seeing the redistribution of poverty under this Tory Government. The money just does not exist to fund public services where the demand is growing, which is in adult social care and children’s safeguarding.

We heard earlier that Basingstoke and Deane is a paradise of local government where residents have seen no impact of cuts whatever. That is unless, of course, they remember the 46% reduction of net expenditure on pest control, the 45% reduction on environmental protection, the 33% reduction on food safety, the 66% reduction on recreation and sport, the 27% reduction on open spaces or the 17% reduction on street cleaning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

What the Government are already doing about exactly that is working with the Department for Education on the most thorough and extensive piece of work ever undertaken to understand precisely the drivers of the need for children’s services, which of course includes deprivation. The report will conclude later this year or early next year, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman is looking forward to reading the results.

Beyond that, the troubled families programme is driving innovation on the ground, changing the way that local authorities work and bringing previously disparate providers of care together to help those who need it most. Other people may like to talk of compassion, but we in the Government are delivering it.

We have heard a lot about spending, but curiously rather less from the Labour party about who is paying for it all. We in the Government know who ends up footing the bill—ordinary hard-working tax payers. Over the past few months, the Labour party’s plans have become abundantly clear. We have heard about a radical change to council tax, a new local income tax, the abolition of the referendum tax limit and, as if that was not enough, a garden tax. Under the previous Labour Government, council tax doubled, and we all know that history tends to repeat itself. I can tell the House that this Government will always be on the side of hard-working tax payers. My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) was absolutely right to say that we should be getting them value for money and keeping their bills low.

[Maria Caulfield]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, under the Labour party’s garden tax plan, 10 million families would have to find £4,000 a year more?

Northamptonshire County Council

Maria Caulfield Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

No on both counts.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

I also commend the Secretary of State for his swift action in response to this problem. I am pleased that the inspector has said that these problems are not centred on funding. Is the Secretary of State concerned that there are other councils at risk of not being able to meet their best value duty, and what steps is he taking to identify such councils?

[Sajid Javid]

If we had concerns that a level existed similar to the one that materialised in Northamptonshire, I certainly would have taken action by now. That is not to say that there are not councils that we are working closely with, that we are keeping an eye on and that we provide advice to. It is important that we continue to operate in that way, that we continue to have a high hurdle for intervention, but that we do not fail to intervene whenever necessary.