Homes for Ukraine Scheme

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Eddie Hughes]

I am slightly confused—perhaps I do not completely understand the question—but I think that for the Government to do the matches would be inappropriate. It seems to me that the matches made so far by non-governmental organisations or charities are proving incredibly effective. That approach is ensuring that the matches are more likely to last. With the greatest respect, for the Government to be involved in putting people together would only take away our focus from the administrative element that we need to deal with. There are excellent charities and NGOs that are very capable and are engaging very passionately with the Government to offer their services; I think that that is proving the best route.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that if it were left to the individual sponsor and the refugees, the process would be a whole lot quicker. However, Kateryna and 11-year-old Vadym are living in temporary accommodation in Poland; a home and a school place are waiting for them in my constituency, but clearly the Home Office system of matching is not working. They are absolutely frustrated. They have a home waiting for them, so will the Minister step up, work with the Home Office and get them over to this country?

[Eddie Hughes]

The pace at which we are getting through applications is ramping up: we will very soon be working our way through more than 10,000 a week. I completely understand the frustration that the hon. Gentleman expresses, because we would all like to see the process working far more quickly than it is already, but we are committed to ensuring that it works more quickly by the day.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Yes.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that Warwickshire County Council is keen to have some sort of county unitary deal, but he will also be aware that Warwick District Council and Stratford-on-Avon District Council recently voted for a combined council—probably with the intent of a unitary one as well. Should it not be down to not the councillors or the Secretary of State, but the public to decide the future of local government across our country?

[Michael Gove]

I welcome the moves across Warwickshire to consider how services can be delivered even more efficiently as part of the economic success story that is the greater west midlands. In particular, I commend the leadership of Izzi Seccombe, the leader of Warwickshire County Council. The fact that she and her group continue to be re-elected with ever greater levels of support indicates that she is in a strong position to help bring people together across the constituency.

New Homes: Developers, Housebuilders and Management Companies

Matt Western Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I wish a happy new year to you and to all present. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston) on securing the debate.

The lack of reference to local authorities and councils in the debate and its title is very telling. Although I understand that the focus is very much on developers and house builders, looking at the changes to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—the former Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, which no longer includes local government in its name—I am concerned about the future of the provision of housing.

As many have said, we need to look at the sector in the round. It is clear that, for many years, there has been too cosy a relationship between developers and certain preferred management companies and builders. The role of locally elected representatives and the voice of communities really matter in delivering housing, as does knowing what is required in the area. Good local authorities can absolutely help with that. Throughout the pandemic, it was local authorities that delivered and helped us through the challenges.

We have good planners in our local authorities and, with proper consultation, they can build the right mix of housing to meet the needs of local people, not the needs of developers. We need truly affordable housing—social housing—for young people who are so often priced out of their communities, whether they be in villages, towns or neighbourhoods. We also need provision for seniors, who may no longer need several bedrooms and may want or need to downsize. Retaining independence is critical to their mental health and wellbeing, and access to town centres and communal spaces is vital for them, but they are often left remote from the communities they have lived in their entire life; they are denied access to transport networks and it is not a short walk into the centre of their community.

Too much has been left to the enterprise of the market, which has been shown not to work in the interests of people. The Government have, perhaps, been too giddy on the donations of developer donors to act and do what is right. The Government were predated by a coalition Government who so diluted building regulations and planning legislation that they delivered a developers’ charter, resulting in low-density housing developments, unsustainable housing with poor energy performance, and greater car dependency. In my constituency, there are estates with no community centres or shopping areas, although they have been promised.

Councils need greater power. As many have said across this Chamber, rather than emasculating councils, the Government need to empower them by giving them the tools and the authority to deliver what is needed in their localities. The number of applications approved by councils that remain unbuilt is striking. According to the Local Government Association, 1.1 million homes are yet to be built out, and there are a further 1 million for which developers are yet to seek planning permission. That is 2 million homes that could be built.

We have heard about the role of developers who are land banking and not building out—look at the Letwin review of some years ago and where that led. Although the review contained some decent findings, it was inconclusive and could have been much harder hitting, as I discussed with Sir Oliver Letwin when he was still in this place. The issue of the national planning policy framework and the Localism Act 2011 led to the question of viability, which is premised on the cost of land. Giving greater authority and power to local government would address that and change the dynamic between developers, builders and authorities.

Builders are sometimes linked or tied to developers. There are good ones and bad ones, and there are also subcontractors in the mix. When we talk about the quality of house building, it is often not the builders but the subbies who come in and do the work. There are then issues of legality and contractual responsibility in any subsequent claim.

On management companies, as we have heard, residents are locked into high annual fees. People are being bullied and exploited, and as we have heard—it is certainly true of my Warwick and Leamington constituency—many residents do not want to be named. They do not want to have information in the public arena about the estate they live on for fear of the impact on property values, and of course the developers and builders know that.

These estate management companies are exploiting residents; we have heard so much about that already. Developers are claiming that residents will get a discount on their council tax because of the management fees they pay for green spaces. It is complete nonsense that they are being promised. There are streets that refuse lorries cannot even go down.

We need to see what the actual housing need is. We have seen the output from the Government’s questionable algorithms over recent months. We need to deliver power to local authorities, and we need localised and regionalised planning to help deliver that. The infrastructure that comes with housing, such as transport, schools, GP provision and even shops, needs to be put in. On environmental standards, thousands of homes have been built in Warwick and Leamington, including some with solar panels on north-facing roofs, believe it or not. We have the future home standard, but it lacks ambition. In 2016, we were meant to have zero-carbon homes. We would have built 1 million homes to that standard by now if that had been allowed. We need greater consumer protections.

Finally, housing is too expensive in this country. So much of that is down to the cost of land. It is a huge economic cost, which is having huge impacts on our wider economy. We need to bring down the cost of housing.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords]

Matt Western Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some incredibly important points. I have parallels in my constituency, as I am sure do other Members across the House. In one example, we have a managing company, a massive social housing provider and a partnership scheme, as he describes it, and the builder. It is a big organisation, but there is no overall ownership of the issues. Residents get utterly frustrated—I am thinking about Ellie, Matt, Sarah and others. There are 200 of them in this one development and they cannot get answers from anybody because no one is really taking ownership of the problem.

[Matt Rodda]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he shows that there is a wider issue with this type of behaviour. It is deeply worrying. These are ordinary families trying to get on with their daily lives. They want to be able to find a home of their own in a high-cost area and they are being treated in the most appalling way by an organisation that should be much more responsible. As I have said, I, my office and local councillors have been struggling to find a way of solving this problem, but we have not had much success so far and would appreciate the Minister’s help. We hope that, at some point, Housing Solutions will compensate these poor residents for the way that they have been treated and, indeed, buy them out of their properties if possible. It is absolutely appalling to live next to a haulage yard. People are constantly interrupted by noise from HGVs, driving past at all hours of the day and night. The air pollution from diesel particulates and nitrous oxide is deeply worrying. There is no way of protecting children and other vulnerable people in that situation. I am sure the whole House would agree that no one wants that for their constituents. There is also an issue with planning law that needs to be addressed, by which I mean looking at the risks from air pollution and from putting housing in close proximity to an industrial development. I would appreciate the Minister’s help with that.

Finally, let me reiterate the points made by other colleagues about the wider issue of leasehold, which is a completely out-of-date system and totally unfair to first-time buyers and other householders—whether they be young residents, people in leasehold properties for long periods of time, or, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, older residents. This system should come to an end. It is a feudal system. Our country is unique in having such a system. Surely we need to end it once and for all and move on from it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

I am delighted to speak in support of this Bill. I have one or two points to raise, but in general this is an excellent Bill.

For too long, many of my constituents who have realised their dream of owning their own home have been trapped in a cycle of cumbersome bureaucracy and additional, unnecessary and, frankly, unfair expenses in the form of both ground rent and service charges. Since becoming an MP, I have supported a number of these constituents, some of whom have told me that they were not clearly informed about the additional costs they were signing up to when buying their house—costs that have caused significant stress and hardship. I had hoped to provide an example, but unfortunately, all the cases are currently undergoing legal action, which only reinforces my point that change is necessary. I therefore welcome the Bill, which seeks to end these unfair practices.

[Matt Western]

I share a lot of the hon. Lady’s concerns about what her constituents are experiencing. Many thousands of new homes are being built, and constituents are frustrated and surprised when they discover that they have just bought a leasehold house. We understand that a third of leasehold properties are typically houses. Does she agree that where houses have been built as leasehold, surely the simplest thing would be to make them all freehold, and to get agreement with all the developers to reduce the cost of transfer?

[Jane Hunt]

I wonder whether that is part of the main course that is coming up. I am not sure; we will see, I suppose.

I think I got the same memo as my right hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), as I am going to talk about retirement homes for a moment. I draw the Minister’s attention to an issue I have previously raised with him. I have been contacted by a leading developer and manager of retirement communities, which has recently completed Mill Gardens and Farnham House retirement living in my constituency. McCarthy and Stone is concerned about the impact the Bill could have on the retirement sector, following the decision not to provide it with a concession from the ban on ground rents. While it is welcome that the Bill provides for a short transition period, it does not take into account developments that were in the pipeline before the position changed, and the impact that the provisions will have on schemes that will be part-sold when the legislation comes into force.

The proposals are likely to mean that retirement developments on which building started when ground rents were expressly permitted will find themselves split, with two lease structures operating in the same building. That is likely to cause legal complexity and on-site management issues, and to complicate future apartment transactions. It could throw into doubt the financial sustainability of some communities, on the basis that the collective ground rent income on which a development’s funding was predicated will be substantially reduced, even though the development has already been built.

Furthermore, financial contributions to the development costs of communal areas, which were previously shared transparently and equitably, will become complicated, and that risks a sense of unfairness and disunity arising between residents in the same block. I wonder, therefore, whether a modest technical change could be made to the Bill to allow for developments already part-sold to complete sales, so that all apartments operate on the same basis.

I heard the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the previous Secretary of State, on retirement homes and wonder whether a longer transition period for retirement homes would be better than one ending in 2023. That said, it cannot be right for buyers of new properties to face further financial demands for ground rent. House buying must be made fairer and more transparent, and freeholders and landlords must not be able to continue to amass significant profits from ground rent and, indeed, administration charges to the detriment of homeowners. The Bill is therefore an incredibly important piece of legislation that I wholeheartedly support.

Budget Resolutions

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I am sure I am not alone in noticing—certainly the Foreign Secretary has done—that the Chancellor seems to be a little bit too preoccupied by his own self-image and should perhaps be more concerned about the prospects of others.

The harsh reality out there is that we are facing a 1.3% growth rate versus the 2.3% that we enjoyed under the last Labour Government, which would have carried through to the past decade. The economy has been badly damaged by the past 18 months, but particularly by the past 11 years. The purchasing managers index, a true measure of confidence in the economy, shows the widest margin between services and manufacturing since 2009. Vehicle manufacturing was down by 42% last month, and that is the third consecutive month that it has fallen. We are facing a cost-of-living crisis ripping through our communities, with food inflation at 1.1% just in the month of August. As for the pay increases that the Chancellor has talked about, just remember that back at the beginning of the year he was talking about 1% for nurses, and he must have realised that inflation was going to start tearing through our economy.

This is hurting people everywhere, and not just the majority of those on universal credit—hot on the heels of national insurance increases, it is going to affect all of us. According to the Resolution Foundation, we all face an average of £3,000 in tax increases, with women, on average, £1,800 worse off over the next six years. There is an energy crisis with people facing energy poverty—the stark choice between heating or eating. The Government could have done more by capping VAT, but they chose not to. In education, just one third of Kevan Collins’, the catch-up tsar’s, budget is actually being allocated, with £10 billion missing that could have been put in. There is no mention of funding for higher education and support for students at this difficult time. We see communities and town centres decimated by the hollowing out by the likes of Amazon who are then rewarded with tax breaks. I welcome the announcement on housing support and more housing, but, like the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), I want to see an absolute commitment to more social and, in particular, council housing.

There was no mention of the climate crisis, which the Chancellor failed to address. This Government are not on track to achieve the fourth or fifth carbon budget, yet they still, despite the penalties that we will face, see it as right to cut air passenger duty on short-haul flights. The reality is that we are seeing one of the major impacts of climate change—heavy instant flooding—happening in Yorkshire, south Wales, London, the midlands and elsewhere.

Let me contrast this with what Labour would promise. We have made it clear that we will not cut corners on children’s education. The full £15 billion that was called for by the catch-up tsar would be put into our schools. There would be a proper rise in the minimum wage to £10 per hour. We would cut VAT on energy bills to help families through this winter. We would remove business rates to help our businesses and secure jobs. We would deliver a green industrial revolution providing jobs and investment in every community. We would provide an industrial strategy. Just look at what Joe Biden has done in the US with his $52 billion CHIPS for America Act to secure semiconductor supplies. That is what I call a strategy. The choice is clear between the high-tax, low-productivity, low-growth model of this Government and the fair-tax, high-productivity, sustained growth model offered by Labour.

Planning

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate and thank him for his valued contribution to the all-party parliamentary group for council housing, which I have the privilege to chair.

We could do much to address the considerable inequality in our society by tackling the housing crisis. Many of us across the House understand that housing is vital to enabling a decent quality of life. In turn, we appreciate that it hinges on a planning system that is fair. I take that fairness to comprise wide-scale access to affordable housing, strong local democratic controls on housing developers and the prioritisation of local communities. Sadly, that is distinctly absent from the Government’s proposed reforms to the planning system.

Although I accept that there is a severe need for housing in this country, a planning system that does not take into account those markers of fairness will do nothing for local people up and down the country, including those in my constituency. The issue is about what housing is required and where. I have more faith in the old system, which had greater powers for authorities and local development corporations, but the Localism Act 2011 greatly denuded the powers of local authorities and, in particular, muzzled the voices of our communities.

Let me give one example that is going through the system and relates to Warwick District Council’s local plan, which runs to 2029. The application for what is labelled the East Whitnash housing development is currently being considered by the planning inspector. The proposed housing development has no regard for local traffic issues or the wishes of residents. It is far from being a sustainable development; it has everything to do with over-development. Our local plan estimates that 20,000 new homes will be delivered, representing an over-development of 3,500 dwellings.

Forgive me, but the common theme throughout the debate has been over-development coupled with overestimation. The challenge has been great enough under the existing planning legislation, which already stifles local voices. The Government’s plans to stop local opponents blocking developments in designated growth zones mean that the concerns raised by the local community in Whitnash and elsewhere will hold no sway—so much for local accountability.

More specifically, I am deeply concerned by the advent of a new planning system in which affordable housing will be increasingly out of reach. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) stated, there is real unaffordability in many areas across the country. With an increasing amount of power centralised in the hands of housing developers, I struggle to see how the Government’s proposals will turn the tide of the declining number of affordable houses.

I suggest some improvements to the Bill: keep prioritising local government so that local officials will not be stripped of their power to assess building applications; establish regional development corporations led by local authorities, as well as community-led proposals; on community-led housing, ensure that senior Government figures actually take on board that, as we have heard, most communities welcome housing provided that it is truly affordable for young people; and prioritise local, affordable homes—for too many areas, the cost of housing as a ratio of local incomes is way too high. We must also ensure that there are enhanced powers for local authorities. We need to proscribe land banking and provide greater powers to local authorities to buy sites at existing land prices. All too often, developers control land, making millions on land options, while landowners ride off into the sunset, pocketing tens of millions of pounds.

The planning Bill needs to ensure that we build communities, not houses. All too often, there are no shops, pubs or community centres, as has been demonstrated south of Warwick and Leamington. Infrastructure needs to be built in advance, and all that is possible. I urge the Government to listen to us and the public, and to stop listening to the developer-donors who are destroying our countryside, denying communities the right housing and leaving generations impoverished as a result.

Affordable and Safe Housing for All

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Last Monday, a mere 80 hours after polling stations had closed, a leaflet fell on our doormat. Even though consent is already in place for 4,000 homes, which is more than necessary, it was the start of a consultation, a new local plan for Warwick and Leamington and the wider area. So many constituents in Bishop’s Tachbrook, Barford, Budbrooke, Hampton Magna and Hatton in my constituency will be rightly alarmed by what is being proposed, because it will be underpinned by the new planning Bill, which is nothing short of a developers’ charter.

Let us be honest: the Queen’s Speech did not present a realistic plan to fix the housing crisis. After all, we have seen an absolute reduction of 200,000 social rent homes since 2010. Where were the proposals to build more council housing and the 150,000 social rent homes that are needed and have been called for by Shelter and by Opposition Members? Since 2010, Warwick District Council in my constituency has built only 21 council homes. Where was the security for private renters? The Government promised better protection, but the renters reform Bill has been kicked into the long grass. Where was the ambition to invest in existing council housing stock or to address some of the considerable inequalities that have been exposed in the past year?

What pains me so greatly is that in this year of COP26, the Government lack ambition to build zero-carbon homes. We are five years on from 2016, the date by which the last Labour Government promised to introduce them. Five lost years, 1 million zero-carbon homes that would have been delivered by a Labour Government—just imagine.

I will leave for another day topics such as higher education, but in the few seconds that remain, let me highlight a few other major issues in the Queen’s Speech—a Queen’s Speech with barely a full sentence on social care, perhaps the greatest challenge of our times along with climate change, which received little more. That point brings me to the need for a network of 2 million electric vehicle charging points, as highlighted by the National Infrastructure Commission and Sir John Armitt. Today, we have just 23,000 public EV charging points.

The Queen’s Speech failed to recognise that commuting has changed forever. Instead, it favours iron rails over fibre-optic cables. It promises freeports, the emperor’s new clothes. It promises, or claims, a jobs miracle, but it is a jobs mirage—low-paid, insecure work, zero-hours contracts, a gig economy. Finally, there is voter ID and the suppression of public protests. No wonder Her Majesty looked so ill at ease delivering her Gracious Speech.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I will just caution the hon. Gentleman that in this Chamber we do not mention Her Majesty’s opinions on any political matter at all. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was being careful in the way he said that remark, so I will not reprimand him any further, but just for the advice of new Members who might not have listened to a Queen’s Speech debate before, nobody has any idea whether Her Majesty likes any policy or not.

Draft Northamptonshire (Structural Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Amendment) Order 2021

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 General Committees

[The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Northamptonshire (Structural Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Amendment) Order 2021.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Laid before the House on 25 January, the order, if approved and made, will make provision in relation to the two new unitary councils in Northamptonshire, which will be fully up and running from 1 April 2021. The order will ensure a smooth transition from the predecessor councils. It relates to two issues: the lord lieutenancy and the Northamptonshire pension fund.

The order that we are considering this morning is intended to be the last statutory instrument implementing local government reorganisation in Northamptonshire. In February 2020, following Parliament’s approval, we legislated to abolish the existing county council and the seven district councils in the area and to establish the new unitary councils of North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire.

Those local government changes were locally led, having been proposed by councils in Northamptonshire in August 2018, following an invitation from the then Secretary of State in March 2018. We were satisfied that they met our criteria for change—that the change would be likely to improve local government and service delivery in the area and have a good deal of local support, and that the new councils would have a credible geography.

I must pay tribute to all the local leaders and their officers who have worked so collaboratively and hard to implement the restructuring of local government in the area, all while establishing a new children’s trust and responding to the pandemic. Those have been significant changes, and the fact that we are now so close to a successful launch of the new councils is testament to the commitment and hard work of the local partners involved.

I also thank hon. Members for the area who have staunchly supported the drive for improved local government in Northamptonshire. Lastly, I offer my thanks to the Secretary of State’s commissioners in Northamptonshire, who have done so much to stabilise the position of the existing county council and provide a stable base for the transition to the new authorities.

The order that we are considering today makes the following changes in relation to the new councils. First, the order makes amendments to the Lieutenancies Act 1997 and the Sheriffs Act 1887 to insert, in the relevant schedules, references to the new local government areas of North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire in relation to the positions of lord lieutenant and high sheriff respectively. That will ensure the continuation of the positions of lord lieutenant and high sheriff of Northamptonshire. There is no change to the boundary of the ceremonial county of Northamptonshire or to the functions or jurisdiction of the lord lieutenant or high sheriff of Northamptonshire. The important historic and traditional roles of lord lieutenant and high sheriff must be preserved for the ceremonial county of Northamptonshire after the reorganisation. That will be achieved through this order. Such ceremonial roles are rightly important to local leaders and communities. The lord lieutenant and high sheriff are royal appointments supporting Northamptonshire, the Crown and the judiciary.

Secondly, the order makes provision to ensure that the property, rights, assets and liabilities of the Northamptonshire pension fund transfer from Northamptonshire County Council to West Northamptonshire council, which will be the new administering authority of the pension fund for both the new councils, all predecessor councils and other employers who participate in the Northamptonshire fund. That will ensure the continuation of the administration of the pension fund and avoid crystallisation of any pension liability.

The order further provides that the assets and liabilities in the pension fund relating to the pensions of employees or former employees of the councils that are to be abolished transfer to the successor councils in proportions determined by West Northamptonshire council. That will ensure that there is clarity on who is taking over the responsibility for funding existing pensions accrued, and prevent exit payments from arising under the relevant regulations; these would normally be triggered where an employer leaves the scheme. The order provides that, in coming to a fair determination on those matters, West Northamptonshire Council must take advice from an actuary and consult North Northamptonshire Council.

In addition to this order, we have previously made regulations of general application to enable the effective implementation of all unitarisations. In general terms, the regulations ensure that anything that has been done by or to a predecessor council can be continued by or to the successor council. Specifically, they provide that all functions conferred on the predecessor councils are transferred to the successor council, as well as all property rights and liabilities, staffing, specified electoral and governance matters, honorary titles, plans, schemes, statements and strategies, and responsibility for certain functions relating to town and country planning and housing.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Is the Minister’s Department involved in approving the process that Northamptonshire is going through? At what point are the public involved in approving and agreeing that it is right to have two unitary authorities rather than a single Northamptonshire authority, and what is the cost benefit of doing that?

[Luke Hall]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. When we received the locally-led proposals, there was a significant amount of local engagement and support from the councils that put them forward. We certainly deemed that to be the case in meeting the criteria for pursuing the proposals. The order that we are discussing this morning addresses two supplementary issues following the process, and the remaining incidental issues that were not addressed following the previous existing regulations of generic application. I can assure members of the Committee that we have worked closely with the existing councils and the shadow authorities for north and west Northamptonshire on this order, looking carefully at the numerous issues raised and agreeing that the order’s provisions meet local requirements.

The provisions are sensible and necessary consequential changes in the light of the establishment of the new councils, which Parliament has already approved. They ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements and continued effective local government in the areas. I commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Hall]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. I certainly join him in thanking everyone involved in the creation of the two new authorities, including the trade unions. He asked a couple of important questions: first, on the devolution White Paper.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the power and benefits, as he described them, of locally-led decision making driving forward the delivery of investment and opportunity in communities. We remain absolutely committed to devolution, which is why we have just delivered the West Yorkshire devolution deal. We look forward to the first mayoral election in May. We will have nearly 50% of the north covered with elected mayors following that election, so it is an exciting moment for us. We are absolutely excited by the opportunity that that brings to people in Yorkshire.

We are completely committed to the devolution agenda. The White Paper was one of the pieces of work that we had to postpone during the heat of the pandemic, as we asked councils and our Departments to focus their resources on dealing with the impacts of what was before us. Unfortunately, I have not a date today for when we will bring forward the White Paper, but we are completely committed to doing that this year. I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to deliver it and see it as a central and important part of our work. We are continuing the work we have already done on locally-led proposals that can be delivered with significant support across communities. The agenda remains at the forefront of so much we are trying to achieve.

The hon. Gentleman asked about our commitment to fully fund councils and the impact of the pandemic. Of course, that absolutely remains. If he looks back at what we have tried to do and the spirit in which we have tried to do it over the last year, first, the work of councils has been absolutely remarkable in responding to the pandemic—they have been front and centre of our response. That is why we have provided them with over £8 billion so far. We have a commitment to £11 billion for councils. If we look at the returns that councils have submitted to my Department, the amount that they are spending and the projected amount that they are likely to spend to the end of this financial year, that comes to a total of £6.9 billion, so we have provided them well in excess of the amount that they have spent. We also have in place the sales, fees and charges and other income loss schemes, which have already started to pay out—we have paid out £500 million already. Of course, we keep that under close review.

My last point on local government finance is that we tried as best we could in the context of a one-year spending review, which that was necessary because of the circumstances, to give councils the certainty with their finances using the tools we had to do so. Alongside the provisional settlement that we published in December, we also published three other important things. First, we published the allocations for each council for the covid support that they will receive from April to the end of June. That was a breakdown of £1.5 billion by local authority. It was a conscious policy decision to do that early on to give councils certainty in the context of the spending review.

Secondly, we published the local council tax support scheme with the details broken down by local authority, and the details of the sales, fees and charges scheme. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that commitment absolutely remains and that we want to support and empower councils and communities to deliver public services efficiently.

[Matt Western]

Specifically on that point, is the Minister aware of the situation in Northamptonshire given it had an issue, I recall a few years ago, with a £53 million brand-new headquarters—as it described it—for the council? Has that impacted on its ability to supply services through the pandemic or, indeed, as we were discussing pension funds, has it had any impact on the future provision of pension funds for staff?

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We are hugely grateful to parish and town councils, which have been on the frontline in responding to this pandemic. That is why the Secretary of State wrote to them earlier this year to encourage principal councils to work with them to discuss funding. Councils in Devon will receive a further £31 million in un-ringfenced covid funding next year, which will help to ensure that their facilities are maintained and ready for the summer. Finally, I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituency has received an offer of £6.5 million from our future high streets fund, which I understand will go towards refurbishment of the historic market quarter.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

  Considering local government reform, the five boroughs and districts of Warwickshire have spent over £100,000 on a report by Deloitte, and I understand that Warwickshire County Council has spent over £50,000 with PricewaterhouseCoopers. Deloitte found that it would be favourable for one sort of authority, while PricewaterhouseCoopers decided that county councils should remain as is. Is that a good use of public money?

[Luke Hall]

Those individual decisions are decisions for local authorities. I can certainly inform the hon. Gentleman that Warwick has received over £3.7 million this year in covid funding, and is receiving a 4.8% real-terms rise in core spending power this current financial year, but the individual decision to which he has referred is for the council to make.

Towns Fund

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s interest and their recognition of the importance of Royal Leamington Spa to be a recipient of potentially £10 million. As an important sub-regional shopping centre, it is a vital part of the region’s economy and quality of life, so let me praise the council officers at Warwick District Council for the quality of their original submission and the work they have done since in refining the proposals against a reduced contribution proposed by the Government. That said, £10 million is a sound amount for them to work with, and I hope it can do much to address the air quality in the town, highlighted by the World Health Organisation as an issue, while revitalising the commercial centre more widely.

However, let me cut to the chase. Over the past decade the Government have cut £15 billion from local authorities across the UK, yet handed back just £3.6 billion to some towns which they invited to bid for moneys. Members will know that back in October I questioned the Prime Minister—did I have the guts, he asked me—about how it could be that the Secretary of State could approve tens of millions of pounds for his Minister and his constituency town of Darwen, while that Minister could return the favour and approve tens of millions of pounds for the Secretary of State’s constituency town of Newark—beyond belief. But how were the 101 towns selected in the first instance? Surely, if the Government were honest in their claim to level up, they would have allocated the moneys to the most deprived communities across England, but they have not. In the past year, we have heard many cases of the Government using algorithms, or more often malgorithms, but this is back-of-a-fag-packetithm. While Housing, Communities and Local Government officials may have recommended that the Government did one thing—namely, allocate funds to the most deserving communities—instead the Secretary of State and Ministers allocated moneys to towns in the lowest priority category.

It is also worth noting that the Government chose to allocate by region, not need, so the north and the midlands were disadvantaged by their political ploys. How else could Bournemouth benefit but, shockingly, South Shields be left off? Both are seaside towns, but I think I know which is in greater need of the funding. It is something Harry Redknapp would have appreciated more than most. I will not even go into Cheadle. While Big Ben no longer bongs, this Government bung, and they are doing it on an industrial scale. A simple analysis of the towns that have received moneys underlines the political tactics laid bare. Certainly the timing of the announcement, in the last few weeks before the last general election, might give us a clue. It was carefully targeted at marginal seats. Interestingly, the impartial cross-party Public Accounts Committee concluded in its investigation that the selection process was not impartial. It took evidence from Christopher Hanretty, a professor of politics at Royal Holloway, who said that

“the process by which towns were invited to bid for money from the Towns Fund was driven by party-political electoral advantage”,

riding roughshod over any pretence to be levelling up this country. Any section 151 officer in a council would be sacked if they acted like this.

Any impartial observer will see this for what it is, and certainly the public do. It is grubby government of the worst order.