Local Government Finance (England)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Before I get into the substance of what I want to say about this settlement, I want to make a couple of remarks to the Secretary of State. There was a debate yesterday in Westminster Hall on local government funding in Merseyside—the Liverpool city region, as we now call it—which was covered by the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien). In his response, he chose not to answer any of the questions asked by me or my hon. Friends from the city region. The Secretary of State is unfailingly polite and always pays attention to what people say, so I say to him ever so discreetly—of course, no one else can hear what I have to say—that he needs to have a word with the Under-Secretary of State, who should understand that one of the basic requirements of replying to a debate is to respond to what people said during it.

Unfortunately, the local government finance settlement, as others have said, is still 20% lower now than it was in 2012-13. I will return to the implications of that for Knowsley, but I will first make some general comments, some of which have already been made, about the overall implications for local government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) pointed out, it represents a one-year settlement and, in a typically fluent, well-informed speech, she made it clear why that is unacceptable. I simply add that it is impossible for local government to plan ahead unless local authorities know more than a year ahead—preferably three years—what they will receive in grants. I am sure the Minister and the Secretary of State are well aware that that is an impediment for local authorities, and I hope that they will address it in future settlements.

My hon. Friend also mentioned that the Government promised—if the Government deliver on this, I am sure that it will be welcomed—that the next settlement will better reflect local levels of need. That would be important if it did address the disparities in deprivation between local authorities in different parts of the country, rather than to continue with the shift towards sparsity and population-based measures, which are manifestly unfair on those areas with the greatest need. I therefore ask the Minister—perhaps he will take the time to answer this at some point—to confirm that need will be properly accounted for in any new grant distribution system.

There is also justifiable concern that if Knowsley does not increase council tax by 2.99%, it would forgo permanent funding that the Government might assume will be available when determining future funding allocations. Will the Minister reassure me that the Government will not penalise those local authorities that, for whatever reason, decide that 2.99% is unaffordable to their residents?

I also worry that the settlement will be insufficient to cover inflationary pressures—for example, democratic pressures, legislative cost pressures, and pressures as a result of the health and social care levy on national insurance and energy price rises of up to 50%. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) pointed out, the general level is already above 5% and could, by the end of the year, be as much as 6%. That will mean that the settlement will be less generous than it appears to be at the moment. Will the Minister again give us some assurance that any additional inflationary pressures that influence the way that the grant will work for local authorities will be considered sympathetically?

The settlement includes funding for new burdens, such as adult social care, children’s social care and home-to-school transport. Unfortunately, however, it is wholly inadequate and will not cover, for example, the £12 million that Knowsley faces as a result of these additional demands.

I turn to the specific implications of the settlement for Knowsley. As the Minister will know, since 2010 Knowsley has had its grant support reduced by £116 million. That figure was referred to in a debate yesterday. The cumulative effect of that on a small borough such as Knowsley—the third most deprived authority in England, by the way—is enormous. It means not only that services that are badly needed by people cannot be extended or grown to meet need—I have referred to some of the pressures that brings—but that people’s life chances are impaired, sometimes irreversibly, by the lack of support that they get. That is nothing to do with any intention on the part of Knowsley; it is simply a matter of the money not being there to do everything that it needs to do. Will the Minister undertake to start the process of reversing that unfair and unacceptable trend whereby areas with high need, such as Knowsley, end up having some of the highest cuts in grant support anywhere in the country?

The picture I have painted so far is one of unrelieved gloom, particularly for Knowsley, so let me make a couple of positive points. First, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the 8.5% increase in core spending power that Knowsley will get is welcome, although, frankly, it does not do anything like address the problem of the £116 million that we have lost over the past decade.

Secondly, despite the crushing loss of grant that we have experienced, Knowsley Council, amazingly, managed to bring about some transformational changes, including the regeneration of Kirby town centre. As a result of the fact that there were years and years of successive private sector owners who failed to regenerate the town centre, the council, very bravely, bought it and is now in the process of wholesale regeneration, which is obvious for all to see. There is also the Shakespeare North project, which I do not know whether the Minister is aware of—probably not.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

indicated assent.

[Sir George Howarth]

I am pleased to hear that, so maybe he is not completely a Shakespearean tragedy. The Shakespeare North project, into which, to be fair, the Government have put a substantial amount of investment, is a huge success. I pay tribute to the Government for putting money into the Arts Council, to Knowsley Council for putting in a substantial amount, and to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and metro Mayor Steve Rotheram for also contributing. I should also mention the private donors, including Lady Anne Dodd—the widow of Ken Dodd—who put £400,000 into the project for a comedy space.

Knowsley Council has been the driving force behind Shakespeare North, on which it should be congratulated, and much else besides that I do not have time to go into. However, there are important projects still awaiting Government support that we had hoped would come from the levelling-up fund, such as the regeneration of Huyton town centre. Knowsley Council put forward a really good project for regenerating Huyton town centre, and I totally reject the assertion that such projects were selected on merit alone because, frankly, this project would have been far better than some that were funded. As I said yesterday, there is real concern that the levelling-up fund has so far been politically skewed in a way that means Knowsley, yet again, loses out.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

I begin by paying tribute to the work of councils across the country. Over the last two years, they have been our foot soldiers in the fight against covid. They have innovated, worked hard and done incredible things to keep our vital services going, and they cannot be thanked often enough. I also thank officials in central Government and the Minister for Levelling Up Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), for their work in producing this balanced settlement today. She is away following the death of her father but she has done a lot of work to bring us to this point.

I also thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful and considered contributions to the debate. I would like to take some of them in turn and, as I do so, I will highlight what the settlement will mean for their area’s spending power. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder)—the spending power of his area will go up by 6.8%—made the important point that even though areas may look pretty, or “chocolate box” to use his words, we must recognise that there are areas of serious deprivation in some of them. That is one of the reasons why we are maintaining the rules over such grant. It is at the highest level—£85 million—that it has been. I know that his council leader has met with the former Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), and the letter that they sent has been replied to. I look forward to further conversations with my hon. Friend.

[Chris Loder]

I really appreciate my hon. Friend responding to these points. I should be clear for the record that I, my colleagues and the leader of the council have been asking to meet Ministers for a very long time. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comeback, but it is important to note that we would appreciate it if the meeting were expedited. I do not think that it has taken place.

[Neil O'Brien]

I assure my hon. Friend that we will expedite that.

Let me turn to the thoughtful comments made by the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—the spending power of Sheffield will go up by 7.6% under this settlement. He noted, to use his phrase, that the settlement was better than in some years, which may be faint praise, but we will take it. He raised the very important long-term issue about the relevance of upward pressure on social care caused by an ageing society, and one in which we do a better job of caring for the sick and disabled. As a party, we have taken difficult decisions to adequately fund that and the NHS, and difficult decisions on tax. We are also taking steps, as we set out in the House earlier, to promote the integration of health and social care, because we all know that is one of the crucial things we can do to make that sustainable in the longer term.

[Mr Betts]

I mentioned the letter from the Secretary of State offering a meeting with officials. Perhaps it could be a meeting with Ministers, and perhaps I could be allowed to bring someone from the CCG and someone from the city council, who are doing great work together, to explain what they really want to see to marry up this place-based approach to health with local government.

[Neil O’Brien]

Absolutely, and the hon. Gentleman anticipates the point I was about to make.

Of course, deepening devolution is one way of driving the integration agenda to save money and produce better services. The hon. Gentleman referred to the important health and life expectancy gaps, and the White Paper sets out the steps that the Department of Health and Social Care will take through its health inequalities strategy and its new tobacco strategy.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) noted the importance of keeping taxes down, and I strongly agree. That is why the settlement keeps the increase to 2%, with 1% for social care—far lower than the double-digit increases we saw in many years under the Labour party.

I will reply at length to the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth). This morning I relayed all the points raised in the important debate on funding in Merseyside to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and we talked it through. I completely agree about the need for a multi-year settlement. We had to have one-year settlements because of the turbulence around covid, but we aim to have a multi-year settlement. Yes, it will take account of the need for levelling up and of inflation.

I am pleased the right hon. Gentleman mentioned Shakespeare North, as I was previously involved in its central Government funding. It is a brilliant project, and he rightly paid tribute to some of the individuals who are helping to make it happen.

The right hon. Gentleman also made some important points about the levelling-up fund. Seventy-five per cent. of the money has so far gone to top-priority areas, and only 6% has gone to bottom-priority areas. It is highly skewed towards the poorest areas and, in the first round, £20 million went to Liverpool, next door to Knowsley, and £37 million went to the Liverpool city region as a whole. It is not correct that there is a political process. There is competition, and there are arguments for having non-competitive funding, which is why there will also be an allocation through the UK shared prosperity fund. There are arguments for competition to get good bids, but we must not traduce civil servants who score the bids and allocate the money.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) will see spending power in his constituency go up by 6.2%.

[Sir George Howarth]

If, as the Minister says, I am wrong about how these decisions have been arrived at, will he apprise me of what was wrong with the Knowsley bids?

[Neil O’Brien]

Again, the right hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. I am happy to facilitate a meeting between officials in Knowsley and officials in central Government to talk about the bid, but this is done on an objective basis. [Interruption.] It does not seem that the right hon. Member for Knowsley wants to make an intervention, as he is chuntering from a sedentary position. Liverpool, as I said, has received funding, so it is not politics; it is about getting the best bids and the right money to the right places. The spending settlement means an extra 8.5% for Knowsley.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a verbal slip when he talked about when he was a young man. Of course, he meant to talk about when he was an even younger man, so I correct the record. He and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is sadly no longer here, made important points about the public health grant, and those points are why we are protecting it in real terms across the SR period and why we have an extra £300 million to tackle obesity, an extra £170 million to improve Start4Life and children’s mental health services and an extra £560 million to improve drug and alcohol treatment.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale also made an important point about second homes, and we recently closed the tax loophole to try to address that issue.

The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), in whose constituency spending power will go up by 6.8%, made the case for more devolution to more places. I agree: we are both widening devolution through the county deals process and deepening it where we already have it. I should point out that the only place in England that had devolution under the previous Labour Government was London, which is just part of the country; there was no devolution for the rest of England and we have put that right.

I hope that the right hon. Member for North Durham will reflect on the point he made and his serious criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison). Let me simply say that my hon. Friend is a superb, dynamic young Member of this House who has a lot of ideas and is making things happen for her constituency. Likewise, the same is true of the new council in Durham, where Labour is out of power for the first time in 100 years. Why is that? I do not seek to make partisan points in this speech, so let me simply say that perhaps one reason why voters in County Durham have turned away from Labour is that they are looking for people with a positive agenda who will get a devolution deal, and not people who just criticise from the sidelines.

Let me move on and address some of the other points made by the right hon. Member for North Durham that were slightly more becoming of him. He talked about having read all of the levelling-up White Paper; he will realise, then, that it marks an approach distinctly different from that under the previous Labour Government, when we saw the increasing concentration of research and development spending in Oxford, Cambridge and London. In the “Levelling Up” White Paper we increase spending outside the greater south-east by 30% over this spending review settlement period; we bring devolution to the rest of England, not just to London; and we get central Government back into the business of driving major urban regeneration in 20 places. Central Government were taken out of that business by the Labour Government’s decision to get rid of English Partnerships—a decision that, in retrospect, I think Labour will regret.

I am conscious that I am taking up time, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the year ahead, councils in England will be boosted by up to £3.7 billion in extra funding. That is a real-terms increase of 4.5% and includes an extra £822 million for services through a one-off services grant. The settlement puts councils on a firm footing for the year ahead—one on which they can build and grow. It maintains the things that are already working, such as the rural services delivery grant; it raises funding in areas where more support is needed, such as through the extra £72 million for the revenue support grant; and it makes sure that no council anywhere in England will receive less money by updating the funding floor.

The settlement reflects the reality of 2022 and the acute pressures faced by the social care sector, with an extra £1 billion made available to alleviate pressure in the year ahead and £162 million to pave the way for the landmark social care reforms we are putting on the statute book. With a core referendum principle of 2%, plus an extra 1% adult social care precept, the settlement protects taxpayers with the lowest expected average council tax rises since 2016-17.

Several Opposition Members made points about the wider context, which includes the £1,000 extra that people working full time will get from our massive increase to the national living wage—a Conservative achievement. It also includes the £1,000 extra that 2 million households will get because of our changes to the universal credit taper rate so that people can keep hold of the money they earn.

We are being asked to believe that there has been a road to Jericho moment and this is now a low-tax Labour party that also wants to spend more money on everything and cut the deficit. It simply does not add up. There have been moments in this debate when Labour Members have said, in short terms, that the funding for public services is paid for by taxation; we are on the edge of an intellectual breakthrough, Madam Deputy Speaker! If only they had learned that lesson before they left behind the biggest deficit in this country’s entire peacetime history—a deficit that we had to spend many years clearing up, with our coalition partners. On that non-partisan note, let me bring the debate to a close. I commend the settlement to the House.

[Hon. Members]

More!

Merseyside: Funding of Local Authorities

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on securing this important debate. As she has shown today, she is a passionate advocate for not only her constituency, but the whole of Merseyside. She has done us a favour by bringing together Members from across the region on the eve of the local government finance settlement debate to look at the funding in Merseyside.

Merseyside is a place with a hugely proud history and present. It is a European capital of culture, has legendary musical exports and at least two iconic football teams, and has, over the course of my lifetime, made significant economic progress, bouncing back from a difficult period of de-industrialisation. On the other hand, while Liverpool is absolutely recovering and making progress, we recognise that the city region continues to face profound challenges of deprivation and poor health—challenges that are among the most severe in the country.

We are committed to delivering a more prosperous future for Merseyside, and we want to help the area to play to its considerable strengths while it adapts to the challenges that I mentioned. Our plan is to do that in two different ways: first, through extra resources for local authorities in the local government finance settlement; and, secondly, through our flagship levelling-up proposals.

[Mick Whitley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Neil O'Brien]

I am afraid that I do not have time to give way; I am so sorry.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Oh, come on!

[Neil O'Brien]

I am up against the clock, as the hon. Lady knows.

As we announced on Monday, the local government finance settlement for the next year makes an additional £3.7 billion available to councils in England; that includes funding for adult social care reform. This is an increase in local authority funding of more than 4.5% in real terms compared with the previous year, and we expect core spending power—the measure of resources available to local authorities to fund service delivery—to rise from £50.4 billion in 2021-22 to £54.1 billion in 2022-23, which I am just about to come to. I emphasise that the Government are providing around £1.6 billion in additional grant in the next year through the settlement, and through additional funding for things such as the supporting families programme and cyber-resilience. What that means for Merseyside is that core spending power will increase for all authorities in the region by at least 7.7%, compared with last year.

[Maria Eagle]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Neil O'Brien]

I have made it clear that I will not give way.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister has made clear that he is not giving way. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong. However, I point out that he has six minutes left. I know that feelings are running high, but everybody has had their say, so let us give the Minister the courtesy of hearing what he has to say.

[Neil O'Brien]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. That 7.7% increase is above the average cash increase across England of 7.4%. It is a cash increase of 7.7% for Sefton, 7.9% for the Wirral, 8.1% for Liverpool city, 8.4% for St Helens and 8.5% for Knowsley.

However, as every Member here will know, we vowed to build back better from the pandemic, and that is not only about local authority spending. We plan to do that through a cross-government mission to level up the country. We will increase our support for local councils, such as those in Merseyside, taking control of their destiny and stimulating their own growth.

Last week saw the long-awaited publication of our levelling-up White Paper, which Members referred to. It set out our plans. Part of it is about helping people directly; that is why we have changed the universal credit taper rate, making the average full-time worker £1,000 better off. Part of it is about employment support and the extra £1 billion we are spending on helping sick and disabled people into work, so that they have a chance to earn more money. It is also about directly increasing wages through our record increase to the national living wage, which again will make people about £1,000 better off.

On the one hand, we are helping people in Merseyside directly, and on the other we are devolving unprecedented powers to Liverpool and Merseyside. When we came to power, the only part of England that had any devolved powers was London, the capital and the richest part of England. That settlement was obviously unbalanced—good for London, but not necessarily good for the rest of the country. As Members mentioned, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is speaking at the Spine in Liverpool today, alongside council leaders and metro Mayors—a post that did not exist when we came to power—from across the north of England.

However, we know that our ambitions for Merseyside will not be delivered without proper investment, so our ambitions are backed up with funding. Since Steve Rotheram’s election as Liverpool city region Mayor in May 2017, the Government have provided the city region with £172 million through the transforming cities fund and £332 million through the local growth fund, and will provide it with £710 million over the next five years to transform local transport networks. Across the Liverpool city region, four areas have also seen substantial cash injections through the towns deal programme, which is designed to rejuvenate high streets. That includes £37 million for Southport; that is one of the biggest town deal investments to date. Through that kind of funding, we can help restore people’s civic pride in the place they call home in the years ahead. I also draw Members’ attention to the launch last year of the dedicated freeport in Liverpool, which estimates suggest could add £850 million to the local economy and create 14,000 new jobs.

To answer a question raised by Opposition Members, Members should look forward to further details on the UK shared prosperity fund, which we will set out shortly. That fund is worth £2.6 billion and will back the sort of projects that help people access opportunities in places of need. To respond directly to one of the questions asked, that will be an allocative process, not a competition. We are responding to the desire of places to have certainty about their funding. A number of Members raised questions about the commissioners. None of us wanted commissioners to have to go in. According to the independent Liverpool City Council commissioners report last year,

“The Council is emerging from a difficult, somewhat toxic period that has led to police investigations.”

I do not want to delve further into that. However, none of us wanted those commissioners to have to be there. We hope that their work will be complete soon.

A few hon. Members spoke about the wider context. The tax share of GDP is at a record high; there is increased corporation tax and capital gains tax, so the rich are paying more through that route; a crackdown on tax avoidance has raised £160 billion-plus; we got rid of the double Irish arrangement and various other tax dodges that flourished under the last Labour Government; and we introduced the first tax on private jets. We have done a number of things to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders are paying, and that is why we are able to produce the increases in spending power for local authorities that I outlined.

Provided that the local government settlement passes through the House tomorrow, we believe that Merseyside and the local authorities making up the region will be on a firm footing for the year ahead. We are moving to a multi-year settlement as soon as we can. It is important to get that right. I am confident that the hon. Member for Wirral West and all those who have contributed to today’s debate will share in my pride at the progress that has been made in Merseyside over the past decade. If I think back to when my brother and friends used to live there, there has been humungous progress across Merseyside.

In Liverpool’s heyday, when it dominated transatlantic trade, it was considered the New York of Europe. Today, the fusing together of the powerful role played by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and its Mayor with significant Government investment in the region has given the city region a new lease of life. The alchemy of science, health, technology, culture and education that we see in Merseyside in 2022 is testament to a truly great city region, and to its people looking not back but forwards with confidence. Although the city region is part way through its renaissance, there is a lot of potential still to be realised, and I look forward to further discussions with colleagues from across the House on how we can best support Merseyside.

Grit Bins

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) for bringing such an important topic to the attention of the House. He is a fantastic advocate for the people of High Peak, which is an area I know well, as it is just over the hill from where I grew up. I was on holiday there last summer. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty, with fantastic communities, but not one where anyone would want to be stuck on an ungritted road with a steep slope. My hon. Friend is quite right to bring this important issue to the attention of the House. I was haunted by the image in his speech of the ambulance stuck in the snow, which is exactly what we all fear.

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, and my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for North West Durham (Mr Holden), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for their important contributions. As several of them pointed out, the Department for Transport has overall responsibility for the approach to gritting. I am sure Ministers in that Department will be playing close attention to our debate.

In terms of current requirements on local government, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton pointed out that the Highways Act 1980 includes the requirement

“to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow or ice.”

It would be impossible for central Government to mandate exactly how often every single road in the country should be gritted, but Members of Parliament play an important role by highlighting where there are problems and where particular roads should be gritted more often.

I am sure the issues around Leadgate, Consett and Burnhope in north-west Durham, and around Mow Cop, which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton mentioned, will now be firmly on the radar of those local authorities, who, I hope, will take appropriate action. Normally, local authorities tend to focus on A roads and busier B roads, but there are always particularly important roads that do not fit under those headings.

[Mr Holden]

In areas such mine, with new-build properties going in, does the Minister think it could be appropriate for the council to stipulate as part of the planning consent that grit bins must be provided? I am thinking particularly of Meadow Rise in Consett, where my Delves Lane councillors Michelle Walton and Angela Stirling have had to provide a new grit bin from their own resources. If that had been part of the planning consent, they would not have had to do it. Does the Minister think that the Government could nudge councils in that direction?

[Neil O'Brien]

That seems an entirely appropriate point for my hon. Friend to raise, and his local council will want to take it into account in its plan-making process, as would any council, particularly in a hilly area. It is for local authorities to decide whether grit bins are provided and, as a result, most do. As hon. Members have pointed out, the responsibility is divided between parish, district, borough and county councils. Although county councils can provide grit bins, the functions are typically delegated to other councils, such as towns, districts and parishes.

There are different ways to address the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak has brought to the House this morning. One is through greater devolution of power, and he will know that Derby and Derbyshire is one of the first areas with which we are seeking to negotiate a county deal to provide significantly greater local control over transport spending and policy. Derbyshire has a huge opportunity as part of that. Of course, my hon. Friend’s constituency looks as much to Greater Manchester as it does to Derbyshire and the east midlands, and we must be conscious of that in the negotiations, but clearly there are opportunities to improve local transport and local roads through that exciting devolution deal process.

[Robert Largan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. I just want to put on the record that I certainly welcome the levelling-up White Paper and some of the announcements in it, including the discussion of a county deal for Derbyshire. Also mentioned was the green light for enhanced bus services for Derbyshire, which is another big positive, and I know the Minister is playing a significant role in that. I want to put that on the record.

[Neil O'Brien]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. There are two potential solutions in the White Paper to the problem that my hon. Friend raised. The first is the devolution deal process that we have just talked about. The second is the plan to improve power at the very local and neighbourhood level. It is obviously not for central Government to mandate whether Glossop or Buxton should have a town or parish council. Personally, I am a huge fan of parish councils and recognise the work that they do in my constituency and, indeed, across the country. It is ultimately a decision for local people, but it is none the less a decision that we might make easier for people to take.

Under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, local electors throughout England can petition their principal council—the district, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak—for a community governance review to be undertaken. Principal councils have responsibility for undertaking community governance reviews and deciding whether to give effect to the recommendations made in them. In making that decision, principal councils are expected to take account of the views of local people. The final decision to create a new parish council rests with the local authority, although the decision can be subject to a judicial review if campaigners are not happy with it.

As my hon. Friend will have spotted, the levelling-up White Paper outlines how we will go further through our plans to remove barriers to community organisation and neighbourhood governance, supporting community leadership to take root and thrive. We will review the effectiveness of neighbourhood governance in England, including the role and functions of parish councils, with a view to making them much quicker and easier to establish. I hope that will be helpful to people in Glossop and Buxton. We will make it easier for local people and community groups to come together to set local priorities and shape the future of their neighbourhoods. That will include further exploration of the models of so-called pop-up parishes and community improvement districts that were recently recommended by the Kruger review, and further details of the plans to review neighbourhood governance will be set out in due course.

At the end of his speech, my hon. Friend raised an hugely important point about the role of developers in providing facilities for local residents. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham raised this point too, and the hon. Member for Strangford told us about an important and innovative way that communities are doing that for themselves in Northern Ireland. I could not agree more about the central role of providing essential neighbourhood infrastructure with all new developments. My hon. Friends will have noted the continuing turn towards a brownfield-led and urban regeneration-led model of development in the White Paper, which we have been pursuing particularly strongly under the current Secretary of State.

The Government are clear that local authorities are best placed ultimately to make decisions on local planning matters. The national planning policy framework requires local authorities to set clear policy requirements for infrastructure and affordable housing through plans. Those plans should be informed by appropriate and proportionate evidence, including on infrastructure needs and costs, which need to be taken into account. It is important that new housing always comes with the infrastructure needed to support it. In this House we all know that it is a bugbear for people when that does not happen, or when it has not happened appropriately.

Contributions from developers play an important role in delivering the infrastructure that new homes and local economies require. Local authorities can obtain contributions by charging a community infrastructure levy on new development, or through section 106 obligations. Those vehicles have some issues we might seek to improve on.

The levelling-up White Paper sets out the important role of the planning system in the Government’s wider mission to level up the country and regenerate left-behind places. Hon. Friends will have noted the ambition to produce a transformative King’s Cross-style regeneration in 20 different places around the country using the formidable experience, expertise and sweeping powers of Homes England to get central Government back into the business of providing powerful support for urban regeneration, a business they should never have got out of in the first place.

[Mr Holden]

I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to levelling up. I know he has put a huge amount of work into it. I also welcome the discussions that he has already started to have with Durham County Council on a county deal for our area. We have started to see Government offices moving out of London and into the regions, and I know Durham is keen to engage in that space. Will the Minister comment on any discussions he has had, and will he engage further on that possibility?

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. If the Minister wishes to respond, will he make sure he references grit bins?

[Neil O'Brien]

Mr Hollobone, you rightly point out that it would be wrong of me to stray too far from our key subject of grit bins. None the less, I am extremely enthusiastic to pick up on my hon. Friend’s point about the Places for Growth programme, with the Treasury move to Darlington, the Ministry of Justice move to Wrexham and my own Department’s moving of a significant number of people to Wolverhampton. Those are hugely important investments in regeneration.

Returning to the core issue of grit bins and public safety, at the end of his speech my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak made an important point about how all new-build developments should come with that type of infrastructure. We are thinking about how we take forward the idea of an infrastructure levy, which would be an improvement on the section 106 and community infrastructure levy processes, to ensure that we have more developer contributions and much more flexibility about how the money is spent so that we can really pick up on all the different types of neighbourhood and community needs that hon. Members have raised this morning.

To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak and all hon. Members who have contributed this morning. The underlying theme of our discussion is that for too long a lot of the decisions that impact on local communities in our constituencies have been taken from far too far away, whether they are decisions about transport that are made in Whitehall and could be made in each of our shires, or decisions about grit bins that could be provided at the neighbourhood level through empowered local communities. If we change the rules, we can create more opportunity for people at the parish and neighbourhood level to do things for themselves.

On the subject of grit bins, I am sure my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be interested in our debate today as he considers how winter maintenance might be improved further. I conclude simply by saying that although the issue of grit bins is a narrow one, and while various hon. Members have had the opportunity to highlight deficiencies in local provision, the issue strikes at a wider issue of power and decision making in this country. That is what our levelling-up agenda is all about: transferring control over important decisions from Whitehall to the local level through powerful devolution deals in places such as County Durham, Derby and Derbyshire, and also to the neighbourhood level through our changes to parish and neighbourhood legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Private Parking Code of Practice

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

I am informing the House that the Government are today publishing the Private Parking Code of Practice. This is a key milestone which takes forward the implementation of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) and supported by the Government.



The code sets out the requirements that parking operators must follow when enforcing parking restrictions in England, Scotland and Wales. These include a compulsory 10-minute grace period to prevent operators issuing charges for being just a few minutes late, higher standards for signage and surface markings, and a crackdown on the use of aggressive and pseudo-legal language.



These changes will bring much-needed consistency to the private parking sector, benefiting millions of motorists. It will boost our high streets and town centres by making it easier for people to park near their shops without being unfairly fined.



Operators will need to make some changes to adhere to the new code. The code will come into force following an implementation period to give the industry time to adapt.



Parking operators will be expected to fully adhere to the code before 2024, by which time we will have introduced a new single appeals service for motorists to challenge unfair private parking charges. The industry should update their processes and procedures as quickly as possible from today so that motorists can benefit from the new code immediately.



The code has been produced through extensive consultation with key stakeholders, including consumer and industry representatives, which took place through a steering group appointed by the British Standards Institution. We have published a fuller account of this process in our Private Parking Code of Practice explanatory document, which accompanies the code. This document also explains the provisions of the new code in an accessible manner and assesses the impact of the changes on motorists and the parking industry.



There were a number of issues relating to the code which the Government consulted on separately, in parallel with the BSI process. This included proposals to bring private parking charges into closer alignment with local authority penalty charge notices.

Alongside the code, the Government have now also published their response to this further technical consultation on private parking charges, discount rates, debt collection fees and an appeals charter, which ran from July to August 2021.



After a careful consideration of respondents’ views, the Government have decided to bring private parking charges into closer alignment with the system in local councils. This means that parking charges will be more proportionate to the level of harm caused.



We are also prohibiting parking operators and debt recovery agencies from levying additional enforcement fees over and above the cost of parking charges.



We will review these arrangements as part of a more general review of the code within two years of it coming into force.



The code is part of a wider enforcement framework, which includes a new certification scheme for parking operators, the establishment of a scrutiny and oversight board to monitor the new system and the creation of a single independent appeals service.

As per our commitment in the Government’s response to our previous Code Enforcement Framework consultation in March 2021, I can now update the House that we have begun a product discovery to inform the design and delivery of the single appeals service. We will finalise the certification scheme for operators and establish the scrutiny and oversight board this spring. In autumn of this year, the conformity assessment bodies will have received their accreditation and will begin to certify parking operators against the code’s new requirements.



Spring 2022: certification scheme finalised, and scrutiny and oversight board appointed.



Autumn 2022: conformity assessment bodies (CABs) accredited by United Kingdom Accreditation Service.

From autumn 2022: all new car parks will conform to the new code.

End of 2023: Single appeals service appointed and transition period ends. Parking operators must now follow the requirements of the new code of practice.

We now welcome parliamentary scrutiny of the code of practice. I will return to update the House in future on the further implementation of the code, its wider framework and the single appeals service.

[HCWS595]

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

The regulations make changes to a key element of the business rates retention scheme. Because they change the basis of the calculation of levy and safety net payments, they compromise mostly of revisions and additions to mathematical formulas in the parent regulations. Although they look complicated, their purpose is easily explained and understood.

The business rates retention scheme, introduced in 2013, allows local authorities to keep half of the business rates they collect locally. The sums that authorities keep are subject to a degree of redistribution, via tariffs and top-ups. That ensures that those authorities which, at the date the scheme was set up, were rates-rich relative to their need for revenue income, make a contribution to the revenue of those authorities which were rates-poor.

The amounts that are redistributed via tariffs and top-ups were fixed in 2013 and have remained fixed, in real terms, since then. Having paid their tariff, or received their top-up payment, an authority’s income from the rates retention scheme entirely depends on how much business rates they collect, thereby giving them an incentive to work with business and others to grow their local economies. But although an authority’s income will increase if its business rates income grows, it will also decline if, for whatever reason, it collects less business rates than expected. So, to ensure that any loss of income is kept within manageable proportions and does not threaten the delivery of local services, the rates retention scheme contains arrangements for a safety net.

If an authority’s retained income from the business rates retention scheme, including its tariff or top-up, is more than 7.5% below its starting needs baseline, the authority is entitled to a safety net payment. The cost of safety net payments is met by recovering, through a levy on growth, a percentage of the business rates income of those authorities which, in any year, have collected significantly more business rates than their starting baseline. Effectively, the levy and safety net work by taking some of the growth of authorities whose rates income has increased and using it to support those authorities whose rates income is falling.

The rules about how levy and safety net payments are calculated are set out in the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations 2013. The regulations before the Committee make changes to the 2013 regulations to reflect current circumstances. They do four things. First, they deal with the continuing existence in 2021 and 2022 of 100% retention authorities. The Committee will recall that since 2017-18, authorities in Greater Manchester, Liverpool City region, west of England, west midlands and Cornwall, have been allowed to retain not 50%, but 100% of the business rates they collect. As a result, when they became 100% retention authorities, we changed their tariffs and top-ups to reflect their higher income.

It would have been possible to have allowed those changes to feed directly into the levy and safety net calculations. But since, as I have explained, safety net payments are actually being paid for by those authorities which, in any year, experience growth in their business rates, that could have meant taking more money from growth authorities to cover the potentially higher risks in 100% retention authorities. That did not seem fair, and therefore it was decided that 100% retention authorities would only be able to receive the safety net payment they would have received if they had been operating under the normal 50% retention rules. Anything above that amount would instead be paid directly by central Government. Technically, that means that we do not use the real tariffs and top-ups that 100% retention authorities pay or receive when we calculate their levy and safety net payments. Instead, we use proxy figures, which we set out in the regulations. In the regulations as they currently stand, we have proxy figures in place for every year up to and including 2020-21. However, because the Government have now confirmed that 100% arrangements will stay in place in 2021-22 and 2022-23, we need to change the regulations to put in place proxy tariffs and top-ups for those years. That is provided for in regulation 7.

Secondly, in regulation 6 we amend the levy rate of the Greater Manchester authorities. From 2021-22 onwards, it will be zero. This brings it into line with the levy rate in other 100% retention authorities. The only reason that a zero levy rate did not apply when the Greater Manchester authorities first became 100% retention authorities in 2017-18 was that between 2017-18 and 2020-21, Greater Manchester was part of a business rates pool with an authority that was not subject to 100% rates retention. In those circumstances, the levy rate was calculated for the pool as a whole. The pool arrangements finished at the end of 2020-21, and so going forward the levy rate should be the same as for other 100% retention authorities.

Thirdly, the regulations make a number of changes to deal with the consequences of some local government restructuring. Inevitably, when the structure of local government changes, some of the values in the levy and safety net calculations also need to change so that they reflect the business rates bases and revenue needs of the new authorities. For the current year, 2021-22, amendments are needed in respect of the creation of unitary authorities for North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire, and for the creation of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority. Those changes are made in regulations 3,5,6, 7 and 8, with the updated figures set out in schedule 6.

Finally, the regulations make changes to reflect the exceptional financial support that was made available to authorities in 2020-21 and 2021-22 following covid. The Committee will recall that, in response to covid, the Government exceptionally waived the business rates bills of the occupiers of eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties and eligible childcare providers, thereby ensuring that those ratepayers stood the best possible chance of surviving the unprecedented impact on their business of the lockdowns and restrictions that were put in place to tackle the pandemic. The reduction in bills means that ratepayers saw their bills reduced by over £11 billion in 2020-21. We have continued to support retail, hospitality and leisure businesses and childcare providers with an estimated £5.8 billion of relief to be given this financial year. But beyond that, we have recognised the strain on other types of businesses not included within those reliefs, and announced an extra £1.5 billion of covid additional relief funding to businesses, to be allocated by local authorities in line with needs in their local area. That, of course, has meant that local authorities have seen their income from business rates fall by a commensurate amount. In order to ensure that the loss of business rates income does not lead to the decimation of local services, the Government compensate authorities for every pound of business rates income that they lose by awarding those reliefs.

That compensation takes the form of a grant from central Government under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003. We paid that grant up front to authorities to ensure that the money was available to support local services during the course of 2020-21 and in 2021-22 for the retail, hospitality and leisure discount, and the childcare discount. My officials are now working to ensure that payment of allocations for the £1.5 billion covid additional relief fund, for which guidance was published before Christmas, is out the door as soon as possible. But the reduction in authorities’ income would, if we did nothing to change regulations, mean that in some cases authorities would receive substantial safety net payments, even though they have already been compensated by means of a section 31 grant. In regulation 7, therefore, we make changes to the 2020-21, and 2021-22 levy and safety net calculations to strip out the impact of those income reductions that have been, or will be, compensated via a section 31 grant. That means that those authorities will not be compensated twice for the same loss of income.

As well as the significant support we have given in reducing ratepayers’ bills by an estimated extra £18.5 billion across two years and directly compensating local authorities for the resulting loss of income, we have taken further steps to help authorities. We put in place the tax income guarantee, under which authorities are being compensated for losses of business rates or council tax income in 2020-21. For business rates losses, over and above those resulting from the reduction in ratepayers’ bills, authorities are compensated for 75% of the additional loss. But, of course, in the same way as for the section 31 grants paid to major precepting authorities, we need to change the regulations in 2020-21 to ensure that all authorities are not compensated twice for the same loss of income. Regulation 8 and schedule 1B change the basis of the calculation of levy and safety net payments for all authorities, to ensure that losses of business rates income do not generate safety net payments if the authority is receiving support through the tax income guarantee.

In conclusion, the regulations make a series of technical changes to the calculation of levy and safety net payments. The changes ensure that the calculations fully reflect current circumstances, and that authorities will pay the correct amount of levy on growth, or receive the correct amount of safety net payment, if due to them. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien]

The regulations are necessary to ensure that the rates retention scheme continues to operate as was intended. In response to the hon. Gentleman’s question, he will have noted the comments made by the Secretary of State to the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and more detail will be set out in due course.

Without the regulations some authorities will receive safety net payments for losses of income that the Government are already compensating them for. I hope that the Committee join me in supporting the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to support town centres and high streets.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

Reviving our high streets and town centres is an absolutely essential part of levelling up. Our £3.6 billion towns fund includes support for 101 town deals and 72 future high streets fund projects. We are also providing support to local leaders through the high street taskforce and by introducing new planning flexibilities.

[Jonathan Gullis]

History, heritage and high streets—these things mean so much to the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. Tears were flowing in the mother town this weekend after a fire ripped through the Leopard in Burslem. The Leopard pub has been standing since the 18th century and is where Josiah Wedgwood and James Brindley met to discuss building the Trent and Mersey canal.

In Tunstall we have empty high street shops, which are in a desperate state of neglect, with landlords all too happy to let them sit empty and uncared for. Will my hon. Friend outline to the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke how the levelling-up White Paper can empower local councils and people to hold absent or rogue owners accountable for damaging the hearts of our community?

[Neil O'Brien]

I know that many of my hon. Friend’s constituents will be desperately sad about the fire at the Leopard; I was also sad to see the footage of it burning.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his leadership and hard work on regeneration. His ten-minute rule Bill on rogue owners is being closely studied in the Department; Kidsgrove is benefiting from a town deal; Tunstall library and baths are being regenerated through the levelling-up fund, and the local council is refurbishing the town hall. However, there is a lot more to do, and I am keen to continue my conversations with him on this important issue as we look to future legislation.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has not really proved very successful so far. Since the Secretary of State took office, the Chancellor has blocked any new money for levelling up, the Transport Secretary has halved bus funding and scrapped our trains, and while the Secretary of State is moving 500 civil servants into smaller cities and towns, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is taking 65,000 of them away. In April our nations and regions stand to lose billions unless he does his job. South Yorkshire alone will be short-changed by £900 million if money that once reached us via Europe is now blocked in Whitehall. That is money for skills, new infrastructure, apprenticeships and science.

“It could be deployed in our NHS, schools and social care”—

those are not my words but those used by the right hon. Gentleman in the referendum. Will he keep his promise that no part of this country will be worse off? Or should I ask the Chancellor?

[Neil O’Brien]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing attention to the fact that we are moving DLUHC staff to the great city of Wolverhampton. As I walk to my office in the morning, I walk past previous Labour Ministers looking radiant and John Prescott looking something, and I remember that they could have done this, but we are the party that is actually doing it and getting on with moving civil servants out of London. As for the hon. Lady’s wider points, she will have to wait for the contents of the White Paper. As well as the UK shared prosperity fund, matching those funds from Europe for each nation, we have the levelling-up fund, the community ownership fund and the high streets fund. Other than that, we are barely doing anything.

[Lisa Nandy]

Thanks for that—I will ask the Chancellor.

That is not actually what I asked. I asked the Minister to guarantee that no part of this country will see its funding collapse in just 10 weeks’ time. It is absolutely great to see investment going into Newark, but what use is that for someone living in Barnsley or Bolton? Can he not see the problem? Money has been flowing to Cabinet Ministers’ constituencies and to key marginals, and still he refuses to come clean on how those decisions are being made. This weekend it became clear that the only way to get money out of his Department is to be at the beck and call of the Chief Whip. How can any community have confidence that they have a fair shot at getting some of their money back from his Department if he will not release, in full, the information he holds about how these decisions are being made?

[Neil O’Brien]

It is true that levelling-up funds have been going to the constituencies of Cabinet Ministers—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I mean shadow Cabinet Ministers. Levelling-up funds have been flowing to—[Interruption.] I will admit at this Dispatch Box that money is going to the shadow Leader of the House, the shadow Education Secretary, the shadow Health Secretary, the shadow Culture Secretary: guilty as charged of levelling up those places, and on that we do agree.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I have been urging Bradford Council to prepare a levelling-up fund bid for the town of Bingley in my constituency which I very much hope will be looked on favourably by the Government. When will the deadline for the next round of bids for the levelling-up fund be, and what will the criteria be?

[Neil O’Brien]

The next round of bidding for levelling-up funding will open in spring and we will set out the conditions for funding in due course.

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

The towns fund is a limited beauty contest. All town centres, such as Crownpoint in Denton and Houldsworth Square in Reddish, matter. Twelve years ago, those town centres had hanging baskets and planters, the street furniture was beautifully painted, and our main town centre park, Victoria park, had bedding plants. All those things have gone as the councils have faced 60% cuts. How are we going to get some civic pride back in communities such as Denton and Reddish?

[Neil O’Brien]

That is a serious point, so let me address it in the consensual and serious way that it deserves. The rise of online shopping is posing major challenges to our town centres. That is why we are bringing forward the future high streets fund and the billions of pounds of funding that I mentioned. I also draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to things such as the community ownership fund, which helps to save these vital local assets. But of course we recognise that there is more to do, and more to think about in terms of how we change these town centres to help them adjust to a new world in which people will continue to spend more money online. We need to make them places where people work and live as well as just shop.

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

5. What steps his Department is taking to increase home ownership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

11. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of the West Midlands Combined Authority’s proposals for a further devolution deal.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

We commend the West Midlands Combined Authority under the leadership of Andy Street for its ambition to secure further powers for the region and will be saying more about our plans to strengthen local leadership in the forthcoming White Paper.

[Liam Byrne]

The Mayor of the West Midlands and I disagree on much, but I think he buys into my argument that we should be the green workshop of the world, and I agree with him that delivering on that requires radical devolution of resources and powers in at least 12 different areas, from skills to energy regulation. Has the Minister read the submission from the combined authorities—the Mayor and the seven mighty authorities of the west midlands—and, crucially, when the levelling-up White Paper is delivered, will he deliver on it?

[Neil O'Brien]

I am glad to see this wonderful outbreak of consensus. I have read the exciting proposals put forward to us but I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until the White Paper; however, I will say that Andy Street has continued to bring forward very exciting and interesting ideas.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

12. What discussions he has had with the Church of England on the potential role of its real estate in helping to meet housing demand.

Building Safety and Cladding: Putney

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Friday 21st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

I commend the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on having secured this important debate. It is a matter that Members of all parties feel deeply about, and the hon. Member spoke passionately, forensically and on a very important subject for the residents of all the different developments she mentioned. As she knows, the Government are taking action by resetting our approach to building safety while introducing substantial reforms through the Building Safety Bill and strengthening the fire safety order. From listening to the cases that she mentioned in her speech, it was clear why we are right to do so.

Let me directly address the question that the hon. Member asked at the end of her speech. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement to the House last week that set out some of the bold steps we are taking to greatly speed up cladding remediation and ensure that the polluter truly does pay for the building safety defects that they themselves created. The Government recognise that the previous position on building safety remediation, predicated on building owners and developers voluntarily doing the right thing, was not working. The hon. Member asked whether we could bring those developers to the table: this week, the Secretary of State did exactly that, chairing a roundtable with the country’s largest developers. It was a positive meeting in which they agreed that leaseholders should not pay—a very important principle—and we will continue to engage with those developers to ensure that they deliver a fully funded action plan by early March, because we do appreciate the urgency of this issue.

As the hon. Member pointed out, leaseholders are blameless, yet many have been hit hard with expensive bills for cladding remediation that they simply cannot pay. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the principles that will underpin our renewed approach to building safety. First, we must take a proportionate approach to building assessment overall. Too many buildings are being judged to require expensive remediation or mitigation, and leaseholders have too often become the victims of an over-cautious approach that goes beyond what is necessary. Secondly, we must protect ordinary leaseholders from shouldering the costs for remediation and mitigation of fire risks. Thirdly, the industries at fault must pay. Those who built and contributed to our stock of unsafe buildings, and those who continue to cut corners in building safety, must pay to fix these defects, instead of taxpayers or leaseholders. Finally, we must hold to account those individuals and companies that have—and continue to—knowingly put lives at risk.

The hon. Member for Putney raised an important question about proportionality. Advice from industry experts last July reinforced something that all hon. Members will know—that fires in homes, including in multi-storey homes—are thankfully rare. Data also shows that the vast majority of buildings will not need very expensive remediation, so we are making assessments more proportionate and will withdraw the consolidated advice note, which in too many cases was used as an excuse for excessive risk aversion.

The British Standards Institution has also published its new PAS 9980 guidance for assessing risk in external walls, which should enable much more proportionate and consistent assessments, rather than the binary ones that have become prevalent, in which the presence of combustible wall materials is thought always to require expensive remediation, even when we know that that is not always the case. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is reviewing the building safety fund to ensure that it is risk-driven and reflects the Government’s position on proportionality. We have already allocated £976 million of funding from the building safety fund, and will open the next phase early this year. We are working to progress eligible applicants through the application process quickly and diligently, because many tenants cannot wait, as the hon. Member for Putney pointed out.

It is important to remember, however, that we are reliant on building owners and managing agents providing the necessary information to us, so that we can process their application without delay. As I come to talk about some of the particular places mentioned by the hon. Member, we will see that that is an important point. To that end, we will also provide expert support to assist with the planning and delivery of remediation, which can be a complex construction project. We will also be providing an additional £3.5 billion to cover the cost of addressing fire safety risks caused by unsafe cladding on all eligible buildings.

The hon. Member pointed out that it is crucial to protect leaseholders. We completely agree that these people, who find themselves in difficulty through no fault of their own, must be protected. The Government had already committed to leaseholders in buildings over 18 metres not paying for cladding remediation, and last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pledged that leaseholders living in their own flats in medium and high-rise buildings should not have to pay a penny to remediate historical cladding defects. In doing so, he also scrapped the proposal for loans and long-term debt for medium-rise leaseholders; instead, the industry will be expected to pay.

My right hon. Friend also announced practical and immediate measures to relieve leaseholders from the financial and emotional burdens that they have been forced to endure. A further £27 million is being allocated to bring the misuse of waking watches to an end. That is on top of the current £35 million fund, which is already being used for 323 buildings and nearly 25,000 leasehold homes. We estimate that that fund will save leaseholders an average of £163 each month, and we expect to open the expanded fund very shortly. It is by no means acceptable that leaseholders can be at risk of losing their homes as a result of building safety defects, and we will be working across Government to ensure that leaseholders are protected from the risk of forfeiture related to historical building safety issues until a new industry-developed system is in place.

We will be exploring further statutory protections for leaseholders, and I have asked my Department’s officials to engage with parliamentary colleagues on a cross-party basis to consider that during the Bill’s passage in the other place. A key part of the process is enabling homeowners to pursue claims for defective work from those responsible, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will introduce an amendment to the Building Safety Bill to extend the right of homeowners to challenge defects under the Defective Premises Act 1972 in homes that are up to 30 years old.

In the time remaining, I am keen to talk about some of the specific places that the hon. Lady mentioned. I thank her for drawing attention to several of the developments in her constituency; let me set out the Department’s response to each of them.

Chapelier House has had £8.5 million of funding approved for ACM and non-ACM cladding remediation, and works are in progress, with ACM cladding expected to be removed by the end of April this year. Remediation has been completed for 1, 3, 5 and 7 Eastfields Avenue. For Coptain House and Mandel House, £6.9 million of funding has been approved for non-ACM cladding remediation. For 5D Enterprise Way, £1.5 million of funding has been approved for non-ACM cladding remediation.

The Swish building is eligible for funding under the building safety fund. The full works-and-costs application for the building, including the scope of works and costings, is currently being finalised. The buildings at 2, 6 and 8 Hardwicks Square are eligible for funding under the building safety fund and pre-tender support has been paid to facilitate the appointment of a project team for them.

A building safety fund registration has been submitted for the Radial development, owned by Godfather Investments, which the hon. Lady mentioned. As I said earlier, further information has been requested from the applicant so that eligibility can be determined, but it has not yet been provided. I hope that the people responsible are listening to this debate and we can get the information we need to move ahead quickly.

The works to remove unsafe ACM cladding at the Filaments development have been completed for three buildings, subject to building control sign-off. As the hon. Lady acknowledged and we should acknowledge, those works were funded by the developer. A building safety fund registration in respect of non-ACM cladding has been submitted for the Filaments development and further information has been requested from the applicant so that eligibility can be determined but, again, it has not been provided. Again, I hope that the people responsible are listening to this debate and we can move ahead quickly.

The hon. Lady mentioned Mill Court and Lord Greenhalgh’s interventions. In December, Lord Greenhalgh and officials met the National Housing Federation and Optivo, which has committed to reviewing all remediation requirements following the withdrawal of the consolidated advice note and the publication of PAS9980 last week. The Department has regular engagement with the NHF and housing associations. The Government have been clear that if remediation, rather than mitigation or management, is still required for buildings under 18 meters, it has to be very clearly justified and communicated to leaseholders. In the specific case of Mill Court, should Optivo continue with the proposed remediation works, we would expect it to explain clearly why management or mitigation was not suitable. I am sure that, like some of the other organisations involved, Optivo will listen to the hon. Lady’s speech and this debate and will want to come to a sensible conclusion.

Before I conclude, let me touch on the Building Safety Bill, which is the biggest shake-up of our building safety regime in nearly 40 years and will have a real legacy of lasting change and reform. The Bill’s remaining stages in this House concluded earlier this week and it has now been introduced in the other place. It is a landmark Bill and part of a package of legislative changes to move things forward and to make sure the problems that Dame Judith Hackitt identified with the current building and fire safety regime are rectified for good. The package includes the measures in the Building Safety Bill, the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the changes to the fire safety order. The new, strengthened regime will allow major fire and structural hazards to be effectively managed, mitigated and remediated.

There is a completely united desire among Members from all parties to make sure that people feel safe and are safe in their own homes. Debates such as this are important so that developers can note the discussion in the House. Together, we can work on a cross-party basis to solve the hugely important issues that the hon. Lady touched on, which are of such high importance to her constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Levelling Up: East of England

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O’Brien)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this important debate. He is a tireless—indeed, relentless—advocate, not just for his own constituency, but for the whole of the east of England.

I will address a huge bugbear of mine, which is the idea in the media that levelling up is about north and south. Recently, I was in Norwich—with the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), and the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis)—to visit an amazing new digital facility, which was part-funded by the towns fund. The first thing I said then was that the east of England is absolutely central to our vision for levelling up this country; indeed, the levelling-up agenda is for the whole of the UK. There was an intervention earlier by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is obviously part of the “greater” east of England, showing the cultural reach of the area. [Laughter.] The levelling-up agenda is an agenda for the whole UK, and the east of England is absolutely central to it, as I say.

Let me take on, right at the start of my speech, a question that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney asked: the east of England will absolutely not be overlooked by the levelling-up agenda. Let me also take on, right at the start of my contribution, some of the other questions that were put. My hon. Friends the Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) both talked about the challenges of growth in their areas, particularly in housing. We are absolutely conscious of those challenges in the fast-growing parts of the east of England and the need for infrastructure always to match that new housing development. That is a passion of mine and of my hon. Friends.

I will also take on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) by saying that we absolutely do not regard the situation in the east of England as “job done”; there is a lot more to do. I say that because although the east of England has an economy with many strengths, it also has massive untapped potential that we must unleash, because the Government’s belief is that a more balanced economy is not just a fairer one but one that is stronger overall. If parts of the economy are overheating with sky-high house prices and people being unable to get on a train, and at the same time we have parts of the country crying out for investment, we can see the potential for a win-win that can benefit the country as a whole and make the economy stronger overall.

On the point that a lot of Members made about total public spending, it is completely fair for Opposition Members to talk about the difficult decisions we had to make in the coalition years. No one denies that they were difficult decisions, but it is also fair to flag that things have changed since then, particularly since 2019. From 2016-17 to 2020-21, total public spending in the east of England rose from £49.7 billion to £78.25 billion—a 57% increase. There is public funding, but we also need a different plan.

Levelling up is about four different things: growing the private sector and boosting living standards, particularly where they are lower; spreading opportunity and improving public services, particularly where they are lacking; restoring local pride—that je ne sais quoi—in important local institutions that mean so much to us all; and empowering local leaders and communities. There are no good examples around the world of places that have turned themselves round and taken it to the next level without strong local leadership, which is something that we are bringing to the east of England.

Levelling up is an idea that cannot be distilled into just one thing—there is no single magic bullet—but it fundamentally addresses the problem that, for too many people, geography has turned out to be destiny; where they are born and happen to live determines, and perhaps limits, their life chances.

At the moment the east of England finds itself on the wrong side of two averages, with qualification levels below the national average, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) pointed out, and the proportion of people aged 16 to 24 not in employment, education or training above the average. We have to address that. As everyone has said, addressing things at a regional level does not give us a sense of the huge differences within a region. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) pointed out, Jaywick in Essex is the most deprived place in the entire country. Other places, such as Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, have great strengths, but at the same time there are significant challenges that we have to address. We absolutely must take that granular view.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney pointed out, the east of England is one of only three regions in the whole country that makes a net contribution to the Exchequer, and that is a testament to the host of amazing companies and institutions that have built the east of England’s reputation as a powerhouse in fields such as life sciences, clean energy, agrifood and so on.

Over the last 18 months of incredible turbulence, we have done everything that we can to preserve the great strengths that we have already in the east of England, with financial support of £1.18 billion to help 100,000 businesses and more than 1 million individuals to preserve their livelihoods in the east of England. As we come out of the pandemic and have more good news about omicron, we can look forward to not just building back, but building back better and strengthening the underpinnings of the economy in the east of England.

One difference that a few colleagues have pointed out is the new Freeport East, centred on the port of Felixstowe, Harwich International port and Gateway 14. The freeport status will help the area to realise its potential of becoming a real energy capital for the UK, which my hon. Friend talked about. Meanwhile, the Thames freeport also opened its doors for business on 15 December, paving the way for a lot of new investment and growth in and around Thurrock.

We have talked about the different funding streams backing local opportunities. As a few people mentioned, the levelling-up fund is putting £87 million into a range of different local priorities, with transport upgrades in Bedfordshire, new science facilities in Peterborough, upgrades to the coastal attractions in Southend, and £20 million to help Great Yarmouth to recapitalise on its cultural heritage and the unique strength that it has in green energy. New money from the levelling-up fund could help to transform the fortunes of a town such as Luton, with new housing in the centre of town or the new community and business space. Those are important things to help turn around the fortunes of that town.

All these injections of cash are being complemented by our investments through the town deals and the lasting partnerships for enhanced growth. Some £280 million is going into the east of England through 12 town deals, including Norwich, Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn, Ipswich, Harlow, Stevenage and Grays. At the same time we are putting £23 million into the east of England through the future high streets fund to help regenerate the high streets that have been battered by online shopping in places such as March, St Neots and Great Yarmouth. Through the community renewal fund, we aim to support at a local level the people in communities that are most in need by investing in their skills, their communities and their places. There are lots of different funding streams to try to build on those local strengths, while addressing the big infrastructure challenges that have been central to so many Members’ brilliant contributions.

In recent years, we have seen some really big road investments, such as the completion of the £1.5 billion upgrade to the A14, the dualling of the A11 and the new trains on the Greater Anglia franchise. Meanwhile, the lower Thames crossing, which forms part of the biggest investment in roads for a generation, will connect Essex to Kent via a road tunnel, supporting thousands of new jobs across both counties. We cannot stop there, which is why the Department for Transport is investing £73 million in the Gull Wing bridge, which has been mentioned, to link the northern and southern halves of Lowestoft, and to save commuters and families thousands of hours in an average year. In the western part of the region—there are, of course, huge difference across the east—£162 million is being provided for the A5 to M1 link road in Bedfordshire.

While we are upgrading the physical connectivity, which is hugely important for an area where often it feels surprisingly difficult to get to places that are not that far away, we are also focusing on digital connectivity. The east of England was provided with £233 million from the £5 billion Project Gigabit. We now have 60% of premises able to get gigabit-capable broadband, up from just 4% in 2019.

[Matt Hancock]

The incredible improvement in digital connectivity has been noticeable in the east, including almost all parts of my constituency, but we must complete the job. Will the Minister say a word about devolution? In his four elements of levelling up, the fourth was local leadership. In Suffolk, we have excellent local leadership under Matthew Hicks, the head of the county council. There is very strong support for a devolution deal, which will help to unleash the potential of Suffolk.

[Neil O’Brien]

My right hon. Friend is totally right. I will just finish addressing the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew): 4G is essential. Dropping calls are incredibly frustrating in rural areas, and the shared rural network will enhance connectivity across the east of England.

Let me turn to devolution and local leadership. While no single place got everything right in the pandemic, we saw the incredible importance and strength of local government. Around the country we have seen trailblazers such as Ben Houchen and Andy Street—amazing local leaders who, when properly empowered, can really change the fortunes of the area. We have already seen how deals such as the Cambridge and Peterborough devolution deal can be a way to tackle important local issues such as affordable housing in Cambridge.

Local leadership simultaneously gives places a champion—to be their strong voice and provide leadership—and a single point of accountability. County deals will be a core part of that, and they will look different in different places. A few years back we tried to bring devolution to a wider part of the east of England, but we can return to that. We have seen some impressive, joined-up bids from leaders in the east of England who are seeking county deals. Nothing, including the health issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), is off the table. That could be a big win for the devolution agenda. Those deals will bring together all the local partners to really strengthen them, with the powers and funding they need to turn things around in their areas.

There is a lot still to do to realise the full potential of the east of England. A lot of exciting change is already happening. By working together on a cross-party basis with all local leaders and MPs in the region, we can realise some of the incredible potential in the east of England.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act: Common Frameworks Report and Repeal of Section 12 Powers

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

I am today laying before Parliament a report, “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 June to 25 September 2021”. I am laying this report because it is a legal requirement under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 for quarterly reports to be made to Parliament on the progress of the work to develop common frameworks. The report is available on gov.uk and details the progress made between the UK Government and devolved Governments regarding the development of common frameworks. This report details progress made during the 13th three-month reporting period, and sets out that no “freezing” regulations have been brought forward under section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. As a result of the progress that has been made to establish common frameworks in collaboration with the devolved Governments, the Government intend to repeal section 12 powers through the enabling power set out in section 12(9) of the Act. A copy of the “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 June to 25 September 2021” report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The publication of the report reflects the Government’s continued commitment to transparency.

[HCWS458]

UK Internal Market Act Exclusions: Common Frameworks

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)]

During the passage of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 my ministerial colleagues made clear that the powers under the Act may be used to give effect to agreements reached within a common framework regarding exclusions from the market access principles. The Government brought forward amendments to delegated powers under the Act to that effect.

The relevant powers, under sections 10 and 18 of the Act, permit a Secretary of State, by regulations, to amend the schedules of the Act so that

“certain cases, matters, requirements, or provision”

can be excluded from the application of the Act’s market access principles. A process for agreeing such exclusions in areas of policy divergence within a common framework has been developed by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. A copy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be published on the UK Government’s website www.gov.uk.

New exclusions from the UK Internal Market Act’s market access principles require the approval of both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure. Accordingly, where agreement to such an exclusion is reached within a common framework, the relevant Department and Minister will seek that approval by laying a draft statutory instrument before Parliament in accordance with the UK Internal Market Act.

[HCWS459]