Infrastructure Bill [Lords]
Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord Stunell(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my interests as declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my non-pecuniary interests as a trustee of the Town and Country Planning Association. I was pleased to listen to the speech by the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry). He made a number of very important points. I hope he will forgive me for not following on directly from what he has said, but I will refer to him later in my speech.
This is a very diverse Bill that covers a very wide range of issues, but I want to focus on specific issues in part 4. It is not just a disparate Bill with a huge range of clauses; it will also have different impacts in different parts of the United Kingdom. We have been debating devolution quite a lot recently and a number of Members have advocated the case for MPs not being able to vote on measures that are devolved for local decision in the areas they represent. That is an issue we need to think about in relation to the provisions in the Bill. The explanatory notes give a pretty good feel on this matter:
“The provisions in Part 1 extend to England and Wales only, save that clauses 14 and 16 to 18 extend to the United Kingdom…In Part 2, clause 19(1) extends to England and Wales only and clause 19(2) extends to England, Wales and Scotland…The provisions in Part 3 extend to England and Wales only. The provisions in Part 4 relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008 extend to England and Wales and (in relation to certain oil and gas cross-border pipelines) Scotland.”
And so on. However, if we look at the Bill in detail, we can see that in clause 27 the provisions relating to the Homes and Communities Agency apply to England outside London, and that there are separate provisions relating to the Greater London authority in the London area. I therefore have to put it to Members who advocate voting rights being restricted to Members who do not represent an area with a separate devolved authority taking decisions, that I would like to hear how they propose the House should consider the provisions in the Bill and which particular sections would be open to voting by Members from different parts of the country, whether they come from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, London or the rest of England, because parts of the Bill relate only to each of the areas I describe.
I intend to restrict my comments to part 4, which itself contains diverse provisions, not because the other parts are not important but because there is simply not time to do justice to them all. Clauses 23 to 25 relate to the planning regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects. There are some modest amendments to improve procedures. I personally have no objection to them, as I believe they are helpful. I merely reflect that when the Planning Act 2008, which introduced the nationally significant infrastructure planning regime, was debated in the House, the present Government were extremely critical of it. I am glad that they have now decided that this initiative, introduced by the previous Government, is worth while, and that they are supporting it and taking it forward.
Clause 26, however, raises an altogether more problematic issue to which I have already alluded. It allows the Secretary of State to pass regulations by statutory instrument that would allow specific planning conditions to be deemed to be discharged if a period of time elapsed without the planning authority having reached a decision. I accept entirely that delays in discharging conditions can prove highly problematic and burdensome for developers, and I am not arguing against sensible measures to accelerate the discharge of planning conditions. However, the clause is a blunt instrument and could well result in measures being arbitrarily prevented from mitigating the serious adverse impacts of developments on local communities. In its briefing, the Town and Country Planning Association says that the Department for Communities and Local Government technical consultation on planning
“reflects this dilemma by recognising classes of condition whose function is too important to be subject of any deemed discharged. The question must be whether any NPPF compliant condition can be regarded as so trivial as to have no impact on the wider community.”
I put that question to the Minister earlier, and I was pleased he agreed to reflect on it.
The TCPA continues:
“Paragraph 206 of the NPPF states that ‘planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects’. The tests of necessary, relevant and reasonable provide a strong framework and logically imply that there should not be a body of conditions which are in some way frivolous or unimportant.”
That is a telling point on which I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view when he has had a chance to reflect on it, because it concerns a very significant issue. Ministers used to be vocal in their support for the principle of localism—of allowing local communities the power to promote their interests and reject proposals that damage the amenity or well-being of the area or its residents. I hope, therefore, that when they have had a chance to reflect, they will assure us that no planning condition relating to the material amenity of residents or the wider community will be subject to the deemed discharge provision.
One planning issue that surprisingly is absent from the Bill is an updating and clarification of the remit and role of the new town development corporations, which were established in the 1940s and played a key role in developing the substantial number of new settlements subsequently created in our country. Now that the Government have given their approval to the creation of a new generation of garden cities and have agreed that a development corporation is the appropriate vehicle to promote the projected new settlement at Ebbsfleet, it is time for a new statement of the purposes of new town development corporations.
Simply seeking to apply the urban development corporation model, which was devised for different circumstances and with no clear statement of its social and environmental objectives, is not adequate. In the other place, the concept of a new definition of the role and purposes of a new town development corporation was considered, and I hope that if the Bill is examined in detail in Committee, an appropriate new clause can be introduced to achieve this. The TCPA has undertaken substantial work in drafting an appropriate statement of the purposes and objectives of the new town development corporations, and I hope this can provide the basis for an improvement to the Bill.
The third weakness in part 4 that I would like to highlight relates to the low and zero-carbon agenda—another area in which the last Government made important advances. The ratcheting up of the energy requirements in part L of the building regulations, the creation of the route map to zero-carbon housing through the code for sustainable homes, the establishment of the zero-carbon hub and the setting of a target for reaching zero carbon in new homes by 2016 were all significant initiatives that have had a very positive impact. Our new homes now achieve much higher standards of energy performances than they did a decade or two ago.
I have first-hand experience of that. I live in a new home built in Greenwich millennium village, which was designed to be an exemplary development. It was pioneered by the last Government and set high energy efficiency standards. My flat is now eight years old, so it is not at the cutting edge of new energy performance, but last winter I did not need to have the heating on at all, so good is its energy performance. The hon. Member for Wealden referred to the previous winter, focusing rightly on the issue of energy supply, and said it was a very cold winter. In that very cold winter, I needed just 42 hours of heating.
My argument is this: just as important as energy supply —I entirely accept the emphasis of the hon. Member for Wealden on it—is energy efficiency to ensure that we are not wasting energy unnecessarily and that people have the benefits of warm sustainable homes in which they can afford to keep warm through winter. That is the great benefit of the whole low and zero-carbon programme. It is not just about helping to achieve our carbon reduction targets, but about improving people’s quality of life so that they live in better, warmer and more economically maintained homes.
That is why I find it very disappointing to see yet further evidence in the Bill of the Government backtracking from their previous position and indeed their predecessor’s ambitions—first by resiling from the previous ambition to meet code level 6 by 2016; then by watering down the standards to be met on site, even before offsite allowable solutions are invoked; and now by exempting small sites entirely from the obligations.
The UK Green Building Council had some fairly pithy comments to make:
“We see no reason why a development of 10 units should be treated differently from one of 11. Creating a disparity between the treatment of different sites opens up the possibility of unforeseen and undesirable outcomes, and possibly exploitation, where larger sites are broken down to qualify for the exemption.”
I wholeheartedly agree. It is very much the case that we should put the emphasis on helping small builders to meet the more demanding standards of high-energy performance homes rather than on providing exemptions not to meet those standards.
Mr Raynsford
I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister in the responsible Department.
Sir Andrew Stunell
The right hon. Gentleman and I have had opportunities to disagree about things, but on this matter I wholeheartedly agree with him. Does he agree that there is no benefit—either to builders or the users of the buildings, let alone to the Government—in backtracking in any way whatever on the recommendations of the zero-carbon hub?
Mr Raynsford
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he can exercise some influence on his coalition partners.
Amid the many mixed metaphors and rhetorical flourishes that characterised the speech of the Minister who introduced the Bill, perhaps the most telling was his characterisation of the Government’s vision of infrastructure as “looking through a kaleidoscope”. I think he meant to imply a colourful view of the world. That would certainly be in keeping with his character, and I am sorry that he is not in his place to hear these remarks. If the Minister and his colleagues thought about it for a moment, however, they would appreciate that the view through a kaleidoscope is one of fragmentation, in which clarity and order are shattered into thousands of disjointed pieces.
There could be no better metaphor for this Bill—a veritable tessellated pavement of ill-assorted measures, some of which may have beneficial consequences, many of which will not. The sum total will not add up to the comprehensive framework for infrastructure development, as advocated in the Armitt report, which is so clearly needed in Britain. This is a wasted opportunity to provide a coherent, long-term commitment to infrastructure in the UK. I wholly endorse the critique presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) from the Front Bench: this Bill fails to meet our country’s infrastructure requirements.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord Stunell
Andrew Stunell
My hon. Friend has been a lively campaigner for more social housing, and rightly so. It is an essential part of the coalition agreement on the right to buy that there will be a one-for-one replacement of every home sold, to provide a new social or affordable home.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I draw attention to my interest, as declared in the register. The House will have noticed that the Minister’s response to the question about the availability of social rented housing was to use a different term—affordable rented housing. Everyone knows that under this Government, social rented housing has virtually come to a halt. When will they recognise that affordable rented housing depends on very much higher rents, and when the Department for Work and Pensions is cutting housing benefit and the Prime Minister is encouraging even deeper cuts in housing benefit, how can they possibly hope people on low incomes will be able to afford those rents, if social housing is not being provided?
Andrew Stunell
The right hon. Gentleman once sat in my office and he will know that during his period of office he reduced the number of social homes available. In 2011-12 two thirds of homes completed—33,227—were social homes for rent. If he had paid more attention to getting a positive input of social homes during his period of office, we would not have such a deficit to fill now.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord Stunell
Andrew Stunell
HMRC is obviously under the same obligations when transferring data in such a case as it is in every other case; it must ensure that the data are relevant to the question being asked, accurate and appropriate, and there are of course safeguards via the Information Commissioner should that be broken. HMRC takes data protection extremely seriously, and the provisions in the Bill, which lie on top of the provisions in the Welfare Reform Act, are needed precisely because it is necessary to ensure that we have safeguarded HMRC and given it specific, explicit and closely confined powers on the transfer of data.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I must say that that is not an adequate response to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). We have seen a lot of evidence on data sharing recently. The Electoral Commission has been undertaking data-matching exercises that have revealed huge problems of inaccuracy in data shared between Government Departments. This is a serious matter and the Minister is not justified in brushing it aside like that. There needs to be more certainty and more checks and safeguards need to be in place.
Andrew Stunell
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that at the moment HMRC shares these data with DWP, which then takes a view on an individual’s income and shares it with the local authority that administers the benefit. Under the provision, that information will go directly from HMRC to the billing authority. We absolutely share the view, expressed by both the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), that it is extremely important that that creates neither opportunities for error nor opportunities for the misuse of data in any other way.
Mr Raynsford
As I am responsible for the amendments, may I remind the Minister that the first of the two he described simply requires that there should be no reduction in benefit entitlement for pensioners. As he has already given that commitment to the House, how can he possibly object to that amendment?
Andrew Stunell
It is completely unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman could have tabled an amendment that said today is Monday, and I would have resisted it on the grounds that we already know that. We do not need it.
New clause 7 was tabled by my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches. It would introduce a premium on second homes that is an exact mirror of the Government’s proposal for the council tax premium on empty homes. The empty homes premium came from the Liberal Democrat stable and I am pleased that it is in the Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friends will be eloquent in supporting their proposition, but I have to tell them that the Government believe that it is right to invest heavily in bringing empty homes back into use, and that is why we are using the policy levers available to us. Certainly, there are difficulties in the second home sector; we fully acknowledge that and we fully understand the concerns that my hon. Friends have expressed.
Andrew Stunell
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but in Rotherham the funding gap is £1.8 million and the total value of discounts and exemptions granted by the Bill £1.9 million. To be clear, a 10% reduction for Rotherham is easily covered by the discounts and exemptions in the Bill. That is not true of every local authority, but it perhaps illustrates that there is a good deal of unnecessary trouble stirring by the Opposition. They are paid to do it, I understand that; but sometimes it is important to refer to the facts. In particular, I noticed that one of the leading financial officials on whom the Local Government Association draws for advice is the chief finance officer of Rotherham, so I am sure that those figures, which he submitted to the Department, are correct.
I am extremely sorry to have detained the House for so long, but I hope that I have provided a good foundation for the debate. The Government believe these to be important and significant reforms that will return power and responsibility to local government and take them out of Whitehall. We believe that is the right direction in which to head. I commend the Government’s proposals to the House and urge right hon. and hon. Friends and Members not to support the other amendments and new clauses.
Mr Raynsford
I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register.
This is a shocking example of how not to legislate. It is three months and 21 days since we completed a rushed Committee stage on the Floor of the House, and during that time, the Government have sat on their hands. Why, during that period, did we not have proper time to discuss the Bill’s very serious implications? Why did the Government not use it to publish the draft regulations that the Minister promised in the debate on 31 January? I remind him of what he said:
“I recognise, of course, that local authorities and suppliers need as much information as possible as soon as possible. For that reason, we intend to publish draft regulations while the Bill is still before the House.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) sharply picked up on that and asked the Minister whether he meant
“this House or the other House”.
The Minister replied:
“I am looking for a nod somewhere”—
he was clearly in need of guidance—
“but let us stick with this House.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 777.]
That was his commitment on 31 January 2012. As I said, three months and 21 days later we still do not have the draft regulations. The Government, belatedly and to cover their embarrassment, pushed out a series of positioning papers on 17 May—four days before this debate—rightly provoking anger and criticism in local government that it had not been given time to consider the detail far enough in advance of today’s Report stage to issue briefings. We had the worst possible example of the Government rushing the Committee stage, preventing proper scrutiny. I remember well the lack of detailed scrutiny, with a number of amendments simply not being called because of the lack of time. The Government then did nothing for three months and 21 days, and now they have come to this House without draft regulations. They should be deeply ashamed of themselves and should apologise to the House for the shambles they have made of introducing this legislation.
Mr Raynsford
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has made a factually incorrect statement that I would not want to remain on the record without giving him the opportunity to reconsider it. I hope that he will therefore take an intervention.
Mr Raynsford
The Government are having great difficulty in convincing anyone that the Bill does what they claim. They claim it is a localising measure, but, as we have heard, there is an extraordinary lack of support for it on their own Back Benches. Indeed, so far not a single one of their Back Benchers has spoken in support of it.
Local authorities are the supposed beneficiaries, but they, too, are profoundly unconvinced. Let us listen to what they say. London Councils says:
“London Councils supports the principle of business rate retention, but has grave concerns about the proposed changes set out in the Bill regarding the way in which the system will function.”
It adds:
“London Councils is strongly opposed to the introduction of local council tax reduction schemes, as set out in Clause 8 and Schedule 4 of the Bill.”
The Local Government Association says:
“In principle we support the localisation of National Non-Domestic Rates…The principle of full business rate localisation, which also ensures fair treatment of councils in areas with weak economies, would be a powerful move towards localism…However, the government proposes to keep a top slice amounting to 50 per cent of business rates for the Treasury, taking taxes paid by local businesses for local services and using them for local services based on national priorities instead. That is not a localising policy and goes against the Government’s stated commitment to localism.”
If the Government cannot convince the people who are supposedly the beneficiaries of their reforms that they are acting in their favour, I am afraid they are in serious difficulty. The Government are, indeed, clearly in deep difficulty in this regard.
Incidentally, in the earlier debate I sought to intervene on one of the Ministers, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), as he had inaccurately claimed that the previous Government had done nothing to allow greater local discretion over discounts on second homes. I hope he will use this opportunity to put the record straight, because, as he will know, that is simply not correct. I am sure it was an unintentional error, however. The previous Government legislated to give local councils discretion to reduce the discount on second homes from 50% to just 10%. The Minister may wish to argue about the 10% figure, but there was good reason for deciding on it, and that was a clear extension of discretion to local government. It is therefore simply wrong to suggest that we did nothing in that regard. I hope the record will be put straight.
Andrew Stunell
If it helps the proceedings, let me say I am happy to acknowledge the factual account the right hon. Gentleman has given, and I am sorry if I gave a misleading impression earlier.
Mr Raynsford
I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for that gracious apology.
The first part of this Bill is a wasted opportunity, as it fails to deliver what people want in terms of a truly localist objective. The second part, which deals with the council tax benefit changes, is deeply flawed. The changes are damaging and will either cause serious hardship to recipients of council tax benefit or will put pressure on local authority budgets. It is not just the initial £500 million that will be a problem; increased costs may come later on as a result of further claims for council tax benefit, which may result from closures of local businesses or a further period of recession. That will be an extra risk for local government, which will get no support for central Government.
Finally, on the issue of administration, the Government are acting recklessly by rushing ahead without giving adequate time for proper preparation. It has been said repeatedly by those in the know, be they people in local authorities or their IT advisers, that the timetable is too tight to allow proper implementation. I will not go through the details, as we did so in the earlier debate, but it is reckless of the Government to ignore that and to claim that local authorities and others are happy with the timetable that the Government have set—they are not.
I shall end by quoting what local government has said on this. The LGA says:
“The tight timeframe for implementing this places an even greater burden on councils and we urge the Government to give councils the necessary time to do this”.
London Councils says that
“even under best-case scenario planning, the proposed implementation timetable may well be unachievable if council tax bills are to be sent out on time”.
That is not the action of a prudent Government; it is reckless and, I am afraid, it is typical of this Bill.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord Stunell
Andrew Stunell
Of course, it has been very beneficial to those on low incomes who are paying council tax and those who rely on council tax benefit support. I think that the Government should be commended for the action they have taken, and it is astonishing that some Members on the Labour Front Bench condemned the introduction of this proposal.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I draw attention to my interest as declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
I remind the Minister that we are talking about cuts in council tax benefit, that the Government’s own proposal is for a 10% cut, not 8%, and that that will translate into a 16% cut for those who will bear the burden because of the protection of those over pension age, but extraordinarily, if the Government believe in what they are doing, why have they been so embarrassed as to have done nothing for the past three months? We have been waiting for Report stage of the Bill leading to the introduction of those changes, but it has been parked. Where has it been?
Andrew Stunell
The right hon. Gentleman is of course a doughty fighter on these matters, and I assure him that the Bill will be back in the House within a week or two.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord Stunell
Andrew Stunell
In 2011 the figure included 1,500 local authority starts. Interestingly, in 2009 there were only 150 local authority housing starts. Since September the Homes and Communities Agency has completed agreements on 112 social and affordable housing projects worth £1.6 billion. The first of the homes will start on site in April.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
16. What assessment he has made of the difference between the number of (a) new homes being built and (b) units qualifying for the new homes bonus; and if he will make a statement. [R]
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord Stunell(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Stunell
I give way to the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth).
Andrew Stunell
I want to make some progress.
It is essential that local authorities plan their schemes carefully and take account of possible changes in demand, as pointed out in the debate. As we have set out previously, we believe that those in-year pressures that hon. Members have mentioned can be managed by enabling any deficit in the collection fund to be shared between billing and major precepting authorities. Our scheme will do that. We are taking powers in the Bill to allow billing authorities to make arrangements with major precepting authorities and to vary the amount of precept to be paid to the major precepting authorities in-year to rectify any shortfall in council tax receipts. That could help to protect billing authorities, which could include small district councils—my hon. Friends mentioned that some district councils are indeed small organisations.
Amendment 85 would require the Government to carry out a new burdens assessment on their allocation of grant, but the Government have already committed to consult on their proposals for distributing the grant. We must be clear that local authorities have to make choices, but they will be able to choose whether to pass on the reduction to council tax payers, to use the flexibility over council tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East mentioned, or to manage the reductions within their budgets.
To the best of my reckoning, 12 local authorities come within the constituencies of Members who have spoken in this debate, and 10 of those local authorities are in a position whereby if they were to take advantage of the new flexibilities over second homes and empty homes, they would achieve an income increase exceeding the 10% reduction in their council tax benefit grant. I am not saying that it is right for local authorities simply to gobble up all that money, but I want to make the point—
Andrew Stunell
In a moment. I realise that I failed to give way to the right hon. Gentleman earlier. I will do so in a moment.
As the impact assessment makes clear, the reduction in the council tax benefit fund to local authorities in England is in the order of £420 million. Furthermore, as is also set out clearly in the impact assessment, the total of both the discounts and the other arrangements recoverable from the local tax changes also equal about £420 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East is right that there is not an exact match between the increase and the decrease, but it remains the case that three quarters of local authorities find themselves in a position whereby should they go down that route, they would have the funding.
It is also open to local authorities, however, to look elsewhere and to put additional money into their council tax reduction funding, and of course they can change the basis on which they allocate that funding.
Mr Raynsford
I thank the Minister for finally giving way. He previously said that the Secretary of State did not intend to use his powers to define schemes. That extraordinary claim was the reason I wanted to intervene. We will shortly come to a group of amendments dealing with the Secretary of State’s default powers and his power to impose a scheme if a local authority does not have one in place. Will the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State does not intend to use those powers either? If so, why on earth are they in the Bill?
Andrew Stunell
Of course, it would be sensible to debate that matter when we come to the next group of amendments, and I look forward to it. I want to make it clear, however, that the Bill states that if a local authority has failed by 31 January next year to put in place a scheme, by default the existing scheme will continue, and that is what the Secretary of State has the power to ensure happens.
Amendment 85 would require the Government to carry out the new burdens assessment, but we are already committed to doing that. We must be clear that local authorities do the job that they have been set. They have the opportunities to raise money in alternative ways and to devise a scheme that is suitable to their circumstances. As for the administrative cost, we have already made it clear that we will be fully following the new burdens doctrine that this Government have set out. The Government will therefore be working with local authorities to assess the net impact of housing benefit centralisation and the localisation of support for council tax, including the transitional costs, which will be covered, where necessary, by the new burdens doctrine.
Andrew Stunell
No, I absolutely do not accept that. The average reduction if local authorities do not put any extra funding into the pot, from any source at all, is £2.64 per household per week. Every local authority—even those that do not have complete recompense of the one pot of money from the other—will still get significant inputs from the discount scheme, which local authorities can, if they choose, take into account. I therefore ask the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) to withdraw his amendment, and I ask my hon. Friends to vote against it if he does not.
Mr Raynsford
We have just heard an absolutely lamentable performance from a Minister who is trying to wash his hands of responsibility for an outrageous scheme that has been designed in a way that reflects very poorly indeed on the members of the parties that comprise the coalition. This is a crude scheme which is seriously cutting the benefits that, at the moment, go to literally millions of poorer people—some in work, some over pension age, some not in work but under pension age. All those people—about 6 million nationally—are dependent on the existing scheme. The Government, in their wisdom, have suddenly imposed the idea that the scheme can be cut immediately, from year one, by 10%. They are then imposing further rules that involve a much larger cut on all those people who will not be protected by the Government’s diktat.
The Minister tries to weasel away from all that by using the figure of £2.40 or so for the average loss. He knows very well that, in proportion to the average claim that people receive at the moment, that means an average cut of 16.7% in benefits to poor people. On top of that, there are the other appalling features: all the risk being transferred to local authorities, which will have to cope with unexpected increases in cost without any Government support whatever; the possibility of an increased number of claims, because, perfectly rightly, people who currently do not claim the benefit may do so when it is no longer called a benefit and they can feel more comfortable about making a claim. Who bears the cost? Not the Government: once again, it is the local authority that has to bear the cost.
On top of that, we have the appalling timetable for implementation. The Government have not got their regulations ready. They will not have them ready, we are told, until late summer; and yet local authorities will be expected to implement this—a whole new scheme, requiring new software, new application forms and new procedures—in a matter of months. All the experts are telling the Government that it will not work and that it will be a catastrophe. Against all that advice, coming from authorities all over the country and here in the Chamber—virtually every Member who has spoken has expressed serious reservations and called on the Government to think again, delay and allow time for this scheme to be got right—the Minister just tries to dismiss it. This is a lamentable performance, and I intend to press amendment 79 to a vote, so that we can say that to the Government.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Localism Bill
Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord Stunell
Andrew Stunell
As my right hon. Friend the Minister eloquently set out in respect of the last string of amendments, the Government believe that we need to decentralise power to local communities. I think that is now a shared all-party analysis, that the days of top-down control should be removed and that we should move to bottom-up control.
For the last 30 or 40 years—my right hon. Friend suggested perhaps for the last 100 years—there has been gathering frustration at the way in which local communities and local councils have had their decision making taken away from them and their power denuded, and, particularly for those in local government, how they have increasingly faced a situation in which everything they did was either compulsory or prohibited with no scope for local discretion or for taking account of local circumstances, local needs, local resources or, indeed, local opinion.
The communities that local authorities have served have had the role of angry bystanders, whereby things were simply done to them, imposed on them or dumped on them—not done by them, decided by them or, least of all, chosen and delivered by them. This Bill marks a huge cultural change not just for those local communities and local councils, but for those in Westminster, and perhaps even more for those in Whitehall. We need to change that culture: it is a long overdue change, and this Bill makes a start on achieving it.
I am encouraged by the fact that the criticism of Opposition Members is now that we are not going far or fast enough, when, in fact, over the last 13 years, they made the problem worse, not better. We look forward greatly to their co-operation in this place—as it was so willingly offered in the other place—so that we can improve the Bill, make it even more localist, and deliver for local communities and local councils.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
As the Minister will know, the amendments include a requirement for the deletion of clauses 42 to 58, the local referendum provisions. Does he regard that as an enhancement of local decision making, an embarrassing withdrawal from a rather bizarre and ill-thought-out proposal for local decision making, or simply a recognition of a cock-up on the Government’s part?
Andrew Stunell
Given that the right hon. Gentleman spoke and, I believe, voted against the inclusion of that provision in the Bill, I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that the Bill in its present form reflects his point of view more accurately than it did before.
The amendments take the power and local responsibility of local authorities further than the Bill as originally drafted. Although the original Bill set out to achieve that, we always made it clear that there was more to do, and that we were willing to listen when there were sensible arguments for going further. That is what underlies the amendments, all of which—as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Minister—secured support throughout the other place. During the debates both here and in the other place, a number of Members of both Houses made sensible suggestions about additional areas in which we could free up local government. Let me highlight two examples in which the Bill now goes even further than we originally proposed in freeing local authorities to manage their own business as they consider appropriate.
Good arguments were advanced in the other place in support of the view that the rules on area committees were too prescriptive. In response, the Government tabled Lords amendments 269, 271 and 272, which remove the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations in relation to such committees. When we were discussing the earlier group of amendments, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) maintained the argument—which does not bear close examination—that, in some mysterious way, inserting these proposals in the Bill, and improving them today, constituted an act of centralisation. Nothing could be further from the truth: our amendments relating to area committees demonstrate not just our intentions, but our delivery of increased localism for local authorities.
Good arguments were also advanced in the other place for the view that the rules on area committees were too tight. We therefore tabled Lords amendments 263, 267 and 270, which enable an executive of a local authority to delegate its functions to an area committee and to arrange for the discharge of those functions by an officer of the authority. That enables councils to establish whatever area committees they wish to establish, and to give them whatever executive functions they consider appropriate, without asking the Secretary of State for regulations or permission. Lords amendment 273 also removes the restrictions on the maximum size of area committees.
The Bill gives more powers to local authorities in respect of local elections. We have responded to representations about unnecessary restrictions on authorities wishing to change their scheme of elections, and the significant time constraints that were built into that scheme. Lords amendment 14 removes the rules stipulating when authorities may change their scheme of elections. It leaves them to make such decisions at a time that is right for them and their local communities without being dictated to by central government, and enables them to decide the date on which they will hold their first whole council elections.
Members of both Houses expressed the fear that the Government’s proposals would place unnecessary burdens on local authorities. We reflected carefully on those arguments, and discussed them at length with appropriate parties both inside and outside the House of Commons. One example relates to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) about the proposed mayoral arrangements. As a result of comments made on Report—by the right hon. Gentleman, among others—and on Second Reading in the House of Lords, we agreed to streamline our proposals for elected mayors. Lords amendment 312 and a number of consequential amendments remove our initial proposals on shadow mayors as precursors to directly elected mayors, while Lords amendments 94 and 296 and a number of consequential amendments remove our proposals on mayoral management arrangements, under which the elected mayor would also have become the chief executive of his or her authority.
Andrew Stunell
Perhaps it would be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to make sure that the report of this exchange in Hansard is drawn to the attention of the council leader.
I can add a little more information about the timetable. The implementation of the rights requires secondary legislation in accordance with the procedures agreed by the House. Affirmative resolution measures require parliamentary time and consultation and we cannot prejudge exactly what the outcome will be. However, preparatory work is well in hand and the ministerial team certainly intend to get all these rights not only on the statute book but make them effective and active in local communities as soon as possible.
Mr Raynsford
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will know that the Government have taken the view, in relation to the next part of the Bill on planning, that their intended policy should be a material consideration for local authorities when assessing planning matters. Would it not be appropriate to do exactly the same in respect of the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)? Should it not be made clear to the council that the imminent implementation of this measure should be a material consideration when deciding the future of the library?
Andrew Stunell
The right hon. Gentleman is being a little naughty. As he knows, the material consideration is a matter for the courts, not for interpretation by the Government. Of course, it is open to the local authority to take account of forthcoming legislation and, as I am sure the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will point out, that might provide an opportunity for it to move ahead of the change just as much as it might incline it to wait for the measure to be implemented. As ever, one should be careful what one wishes for in this place.
Lords amendment 113 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.
Lords amendments 114 to 150 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 114, 115, 131, 148 and 150.
Clause 94
Abolition of regional strategies
Localism Bill
Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord Stunell
Andrew Stunell
Of course I do not accept that. A housing provider who decides that this is too complex can choose not to take it up. As has been said, we are offering social landlords an additional way to let tenancies, and they can choose whether or not to take it up. They can base that decision on any sensible factor, including their administrative convenience. We propose that five years should be the minimum term in normal circumstances. We would expect it to be appropriate to offer less than five years only in very exceptional cases, and we have stated in the Bill a two-year lower limit.
Mr Raynsford
The Minister has said he would like the five-year limit to be the normal minimum, with shorter terms only in very exceptional circumstances. Will he therefore tell us why the Bill does not state that, and why he is proposing to vote against the Opposition amendment proposing that five years should be the normal minimum term?
Andrew Stunell
Yes of course I will, although I will take just a few minutes to reach that point in my remarks.
I want to put clearly on the record again that our proposal does not affect any existing tenant, even if they swap or transfer their home, and even if the person they swap with has a flexible tenancy. Our current system for social housing is not working as well as it can and should. A one-size-fits-all approach to social tenancies does not take account of the different needs of both individual tenants and local communities. A more flexible approach is essential.
Mr Raynsford
I draw attention to the interest I declared at the beginning of the Bill’s passage through the House and again in Committee.
It is, in my view, a sad day for housing when we come to consider this Bill on Report, as it involves a series of retrograde steps that are damaging to the future housing prospects of millions of our fellow citizens, weaken tenant rights and safeguards for homeless people, and undermine the future of social housing in this country.
It is particularly sad that we have had most of the debate during the extraordinary absence of the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who is responsible for this and yet graced us with his attendance for only a few minutes in a previous sitting and has made no contribution whatsoever to the passage of the Bill through the House. That is an extraordinary comment on his values. His approach, which the Government have adopted since coming to power last year, has been to cut drastically the funding for social housing, including a massive 65% reduction to the Homes and Communities Agency budget.
We are seeing individual rights cut back, such as tenant rights for homeless people. There is a curious element in this that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) hinted at in his impressive contribution. He rightly highlighted the fact that the Government are giving greater priority to the interests of the providers of housing than to the public, the customer and the user of services. That is not compatible with normal Conservative rhetoric, and we have heard, again and again, their attack on provider interests and their wish to support the position of the customer and the user of services, but not here. Tenants’ rights and the rights of homeless people are being cut back, and when we argue that point we get the answer, “Don’t worry, because the providers will do the right thing. They will look after the interests of tenants. They will give lots of security, they won’t undermine tenants’ security and they will look after the interests of homeless people. Trust the providers.”
That is an interesting stance for the Government to take in this policy area, because in almost every other we hear a completely different rhetoric—the rhetoric of increasing the power and the influence of the customer, of the user of the service. Indeed, this Bill contains a great many passages where exactly that has motivated the Government, so there is a curious disconnect between the Government’s rhetoric and what they are doing on housing. The only way I can explain it is by saying that they clearly have no interest at all in the future of social housing or in the interests of the people who live in social housing or depend on it for their future prospects.
Andrew Stunell
We do have a concern: it is for the 5 million people who are waiting for social housing, and about trying to make a better fit between the houses and homes that we have and the people who desperately need them.
Mr Raynsford
Were that true the Government would not have cut the Homes and Communities Agency investment budget by 65%. This Bill is the fig leaf presented by the Government to cover their embarrassment at their failure to provide adequately for the needs of social housing in the years ahead, and it is shameful that the Minister should try to cover that policy by pretending that they are acting in the interests of the homeless and the badly housed.
Andrew Stunell
I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says, but will he not acknowledge that at the end of 13 years of Labour government there were fewer social homes in this country than there were at the start? At the end of this period of government there will be more than there were when we started.
Mr Raynsford
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. There is no way in which there will be more social homes, because he knows perfectly well that the only social homes provided will be provided because the previous Government funded them, and that most of the homes for which this Government will be responsible will be the so-called affordable homes—although that is a travesty of English, given that they are based on the principle of 80% of market rents, which will in many cases be a real test of affordability—and homes that are created as flexible tenancies under the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, because we have debated it and I am sorry he cannot acknowledge it, that the previous Government inherited from their predecessor the most disgraceful backlog of poor condition housing in the social sector and rightly concentrated investment in the early years on putting that backlog right. A huge number of tenants now live in decent homes because of the Labour Government’s work, but that Government also allowed those tenants who wanted to buy their homes to do so, and that inevitably accounted for some reduction in the volume of social housing.
Localism Bill
Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord Stunell
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Minister is putting the completely absurd proposition to the House that the local authority will be under a duty to publicise a code of conduct that it may decide not to have. Will he please recognise that that is nonsense? Abolishing the requirement for a code of conduct in every local authority in the country is a serious, retrograde step, of which the Government should be profoundly ashamed.
Andrew Stunell
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question and the answer is no, I do not accept that at all. When we exchanged words in Committee, I thought that this was an outrage, so I am glad that it has been downgraded a little. The important point is that the decision a local authority takes should be transparent, so that the local electorate are aware of it and the local authority are accountable to them. We have accepted the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East put to the Committee, and Government amendments 130 and 131 deal with that.
Housing (CSR)
Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord StunellWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Raynsford
My right hon. Friend, who has great experience in both the financial field and housing, makes an extremely telling point. I have a huge amount of sympathy for what he is saying. From what I will say later, he will hear that I agree wholeheartedly that the impact of the measures announced by the new Government will disproportionately affect poorer people.
After Ministers have been confronted with such dire evidence of the negative impact that their policies have had over the past six months, one might expect that they would be reconsidering some of their impetuous early decisions and the harsh cuts package. One certainly might expect a Liberal Democrat Minister to wonder why he and his colleagues have lashed themselves to the mast of a Tory ship heading directly on to the rocks, steered by a demented helmsman, while the captain appears blithely unaware of the immediate perils, fixing his gaze instead on some distant coastline and imaginary sunlit uplands and—to use the words of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—prattling on about growth tomorrow, unaware that the reality is one of cuts and unemployment coming today.
Instead of changing course, Ministers continue to press ahead on their doomed journey, ignoring all the evidence of impending disaster and pinning their hopes on the so-called housing bonus incentive, which is about as unconvincing as the imagined sunlit uplands. The scheme has been promised as the panacea for the housing market for the past six months. In the summer, the Minister for Housing and Local Government promised anxious house builders that it would be launched before the summer recess. We were then told that all would be revealed in the autumn. Now we are promised a consultation in November. All the while, confidence is draining away from the housing market.
Perhaps the Minister can reveal today how that supposed panacea will work. Will it, as the Housing Minister originally claimed, apply to all new homes? That was the prospectus. I now gather that it is more likely that it will apply only to net additions to the housing stock. If that is the case—I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that—what will that do to regeneration? What will it do to areas where there is a need to develop brownfield sites and clear properties or to improve older, substandard ones as part of that process? In such areas, it will probably be years before there is any net addition to the housing stock. What possible benefit will there be in such areas from a bonus scheme that is based solely on net additions to the stock?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
It might shorten the right hon. Gentleman’s speech a little if I say that it is a new homes bonus.
Mr Raynsford
That is as clear as mud. Is it additional new homes, or new homes? The original prospectus specified all new dwellings.
Andrew Stunell
The right hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening. I did not use the term, “additional new homes”; it is a new homes bonus. He should trust the words of the Housing Minister.
Mr Raynsford
If that is the case, I am pleased to hear it, but there has been much speculation in the housing press, based on the Housing Minister’s remarks at the Conservative party conference—not an occasion that I attended—indicating that it would apply to net additions to the housing stock. There is an obvious concern, and I hope that we will have greater clarity than we have so far received on the subject.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
A lovely bit of slapstick—I really enjoyed that—but we should start with a few facts. In 1997, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), looked on the outgoing Government’s record as a disaster, as I did. They had built 830,000 homes but sold 1.2 million, and 400,000 homes were lost to the social rented sector, which had a waiting list of just more than 1 million. The Labour party and the new Labour Government said that they would tackle the situation. They built 377,000 homes for rent and 182,000 homes for the low-cost home-ownership market—a total of 559,000 homes for the social sector built during Labour’s years in office. However, they sold 605,000 homes under the right to buy and other legislation. During Labour’s period in office, the number of homes in the social sector reduced by 45,530.
The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) said that the priority, as regards social housing, should be the very poorest, so we should judge Labour’s record on what it did to the social rented sector, and exclude low-cost home ownership. If we do that, we find that the number of homes in the social rented sector during Labour’s period in office fell by 227,000. Fewer homes were available for rent, so I will not take the characterisation offered by the right hon. Gentleman, who is an expert in many things, but who has forgotten how to count.
Mr Raynsford
Will the hon. Gentleman please tell us how many of the homes he mentioned were uninhabitable because of the appalling condition they were in, and how many homes were improved under the decent homes programme? Will he tell us about the millions of homes in decent condition that are now available for social rent because of investment by the previous Government?
Andrew Stunell
I welcome that, and I am happy to report that we are continuing the investment in the decent homes programme.
Let me get to the right hon. Gentleman’s central proposition, which is that there was somehow no evidence of a need to change housing policies. The previous Government’s housing policy depended on continuing with the claim that they had dealt with boom and bust. As it turned out, they had dealt only with the boom. There is no public money available—those were the words of the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne). Indeed, during this debate, the Government will have borrowed another £24 million to fund the services that we deliver, but for which we have no income. An extra £400 million will be borrowed today, and another £400 million extra will be borrowed tomorrow and every day this year. This year, £150 billion will be borrowed. The money is not there.
What about targets? We have heard some nonsense from the Labour Front Bencher about thousands of homes having been cancelled. What she actually means is that many of the homes in the Labour targets have not been built. Last year, when Labour was in power, 78,000 fewer homes were built than were in the Government’s target. Only 57% of the target was met. We know, therefore, that the Opposition’s figures depend on an economy that Labour bust, on public money that we do not have, and on public targets that did not work.
Housing Need (London)
Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord StunellWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
Okay, I will do my best. Hon. Members will appreciate that it will be difficult to answer in detail the many points that have been raised.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who has been a tireless campaigner for improved housing in London. He does himself an injustice when he describes himself and other hon. Members present as the usual suspects. Housing need is a matter that people rightly feel real passion about, and hon. Members from all political parties have invested a lot of personal commitment in tackling it over the years. I do not, therefore, want to downplay or minimise the importance of the debate in any way, and I thank those Members who have contributed. I see from the record that many of them also made speeches on 2 March, and although their language was perhaps slightly less hostile, they were equally firm in challenging the then Government about Ministers’ performance.
The hon. Member for Islington North rehearsed very well the issue of housing stress, which we see in London and in other inner cities, although it is particularly evident in London. I will not review the figures and statistics that he gave, but Members can perhaps take them as having been read and accepted by this Government. The hon. Gentleman and, indeed, all Members posed a number of difficult questions, and I do not deny that they are difficult. If they had been easy, I have a feeling that the Labour Government and the Labour Mayor would have solved them in the boom time, rather than leaving them for the coalition Government to try to solve in the bust time. However, we will do our best. Let me make it clear that increasing the supply of housing, including affordable housing, is a priority for the Government.
Andrew Stunell
I will, but doing so obviously reduces the number of questions that I can answer.
Mr Raynsford
I am grateful to the Minister, and I recognise that his time is limited. Given the commitment that he has given to increase the supply of housing, including social housing, will he tell us what advice he has received about the impact that decisions taken by the Government to date—notably, the freezing of the Homes and Communities Agency investment budget and changes to the planning system—will have on housing supply?
Andrew Stunell
Certainly, if I get to that part of my speech, I will answer the point. The right hon. Gentleman has a superb, lifelong record on this issue, and I welcome his contribution.
The fact is that there has been a significant gap between the supply of, and demand for, new homes for decades, and housing supply has failed to keep up with the growing population. Of course, that is particularly the case in London. The Government will create a framework of incentives for local authorities to deliver sustainable development, and that will commence at the earliest opportunity. Local communities will really benefit from delivering the housing that they want and need. Our incentive scheme is designed to encourage local authorities and communities to increase their aspirations for housing and economic growth and to take more control over the way in which the local community is developed.
In a short time, the Government have moved to free up the housing market, with the suspension of home information packs. We have also protected spending on social housing as well as we can, and that remains a Government commitment. That is why we are using £170 million from the £6 billion of savings to reinvest in social rented housing—I emphasise that it is social rented housing—which was, unfortunately, not properly funded under the outgoing Government. Although decisions about the allocation of that £170 million have still to be made, it seems likely that something in the order of 40% will be invested in social rented housing in London. That will require a partnership between councils, the Mayor of London and the Government.
Many such matters are now devolved to the Mayor of London, and some decisions about allocations are very much matters for him. Members will be well aware that his London plan is facing examination in public, and I have a feeling that those who are sitting around this table will want to make sure that their views are clearly expressed to the inspector during that examination. The Government intend to the give the Mayor responsibility for the Homes and Communities Agency in London to help provide the flexibility to meet the housing needs of local communities in the city.