Mr Clive Betts
MP for Sheffield South East · Labour · United Kingdom
“I wholeheartedly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, both its content and its tone. I would like to ask about his discussions with our colleagues and allies in other countries who are looking to implement similar sanctions.”
“I offer two congratulations: first, to my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the First Secretary, on her well-deserved promotion—I am sure she will do an excellent job. Secondly, I congratulate her and the Prime Minister for their real commitment to devolution, which I have wanted to see for an awfully long time.”
“I apologise for the fact that—as I have explained to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will have to leave straight after my question to chair Westminster Hall. I thank my right hon. Friend for doing this very challenging piece of work. I think that the theme of fairness, for the people who need benefits and for taxpayers, is right.”
“On the other hand, so many constituents with really serious conditions get turned down for PIP, and can get it only if they struggle through the appeal system, sometimes without any help at all. So the system is not fair to anyone at present.”
“When the previous Government let the contract, we were in a situation in which procurement could not properly take account of the past record of companies, and I understand that the Government have now changed that.”
“I will dive very deeply into the question, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chair of the Committee sends his apologies for his absence; he is presently in a Committee meeting.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,726 lines we hold for Mr Clive Betts, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 95.
“The Secretary of State gave a list of councils where section 114 notices had been served and commissioners had been brought in. Perhaps he can confirm that Thurrock, Woking and Northamptonshire are not Labour-controlled councils. He seemed to miss that bit out when he was justifying his attack on some councils on the basis of their being Labour-controlled. No doubt there have been problems in all these councils, but does the Secretary of State accept there is some overarching responsibility for a Government who delivered austerity to councils—bigger cuts than in any other part of the public sector—and that while by and large local government has managed extremely well, some councils have gone over the edge? Does he also accept that other councils may now be facing the brink? He has an expert unit in his Department advising him.”
“It is time that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities took its responsibilities to our Committee and the House equally seriously. The first step in doing so must be to respond to our principal output—our reports—in a professional and timely manner. I normally take great pleasure in coming to the House to report on the Committee’s inquiries and findings. It gives me no pleasure at all to have to make this statement today. I hope I do not have to make a similar statement in the future.”
“Our special report calls for a Government response on the private rented sector in the next two weeks, along with an explanation as to what has caused the delay. We have requested an assessment from the Cabinet Secretary about these matters. Finally, we have asked the Liaison Committee to consider a formal review of Government response times, including our experiences with this Department. In reality, a Select Committee’s powers and effectiveness are significantly undermined when the Government do not fulfil their responsibilities towards it. Ministers must be accountable to this House. We, as a Committee, treat our responsibility to scrutinise the Department and its Ministers with the utmost seriousness.”
“We have made seven separate formal requests for the response, as well as many informal requests, but we are still waiting for the Government’s response. It is now more than five months overdue. The Committee broadly supports the legislation on private rental reform and has made suggestions for its improvement. We now need to hear whether the Government plan to accept these recommendations, and if not, why not. We expected a response in April; we were promised one in May; we are now in September and still waiting. We are also waiting for the Second Reading of the Bill. We hope to receive the response before Second Reading, although that appears to have been somewhat delayed as well. It is imperative that the Government fully consider the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations in the report, and publish a full response imminently.”
“In January this year, we asked the permanent secretary about his Department’s failure to respond. He said: “We need to make sure that it is an important responsibility of the Department that we respond on time.” We have seen little evidence that the Department has taken this responsibility more seriously. Indeed, in the case of our report on reform in the private rented sector, published in February, the lack of response has been deeply disappointing. The two-month deadline passed on 9 April. On 3 May, the Secretary of State wrote to the Committee to explain that the delayed response will be published “alongside the introduction of the Renters Reform Bill”. The Bill was introduced on 17 May, but we have still not received a response to the report. Instead, we have heard that a response will be published “as soon as possible”.”
“We are still waiting on overdue responses to our reports on reforms to national planning policy and on reforming the private rented sector. Our Committee staff spend a disproportionate amount of their time, resources and energy attempting to engage with Ministers and officials, through formal and informal channels, to get responses. Over the years, as Chair of the Committee, I have seen responses being late, but things have got progressively worse. In March 2022, the Chair of the Liaison Committee wrote to the then Leader of the House to highlight cases of “egregiously overdue” Government responses. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities was identified as a repeat offender when it came to late responses, and was responsible for five of the 13 examples in that letter.”
“The experience of our Committee is that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has historically and consistently failed to respond to our Committee reports within a reasonable time. During this Session, we have published seven reports and not one of the Government’s responses has been published within the two-month deadline. On average, Government responses to our reports have been almost six months late. The responses to our reports on funding for Levelling Up, on the Electoral Commission’s strategy and on exempt accommodation were all late. The response to our report on adult social care was eight months late; The response to our report on social housing was 10 months late. The response to our report on permitted development rights was one year and eight months late.”
“Their responses demonstrate that they have considered the views of the Committee and allow the public to see what the Government are doing in response to our inquiries. It is a well-established convention that the Government should respond to all Select Committee reports within two months of publication. We understand that that will not always be possible, perhaps during a parliamentary recess or where recommendations are directed to more than one Department. However, delays should be the exception not the rule, and we expect open and proactive communication from Ministers and officials on the rare occasions when they expect a Government response to be delayed.”
“We have also investigated damp and mould, and reforms to the private rented sector—two issues that are raised on a daily basis in correspondence to the Committee and in our mailbags as constituency MPs. We have heard evidence from hundreds of witnesses, who have given up their time to share their experiences—in some cases, harrowing and deeply personal experiences—to inform the Committee’s work. They do so in the expectation that our reports and recommendations will influence Government policy and improve people’s experience of public services. For our scrutiny of Government policy to be fully effective, the Government must consider and respond to our conclusions and recommendations. Sometimes the Government will accept our recommendations and sometimes they will not. What is important is that we receive a response from the Government.”
“Today, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee has published a special report on the response times of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to the Committee’s reports. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for kindly granting time to our Committee for a statement on the special report, and I thank the Committee staff for their support to assist us in producing it. The House has appointed our Committee to scrutinise the Department. The issues that our Committee considers affect the day-to-day lives of constituents up and down the country. During this Session, we have published reports on topics such as adult social care, housing supply and funding for levelling up.”
“Yes. The Committee works on a cross-party basis and our report on the PRS was produced unanimously. We have raised our concerns about the delayed response in person with Ministers at our hearings, and we have also written to Ministers, but still we have not had a response.”
“In the end, we got an Act that is valuable and well supported, but the Government did not help because of their delay in responding to our report.”
“Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He has served on the Committee all the time I have been Chair. We have worked together closely and he has done an absolutely outstanding job, both on the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which deals with exempt accommodation. Given that the Committee undertook a report on the issue of exempt accommodation, it would have been really helpful, not merely to the hon. Gentleman but to all Members of the House who were looking at that particularly challenging issue, which we described as a complete mess, if the Government’s response to our report had been available in a timely fashion, as it could have informed the deliberations and considerations of the hon. Gentleman’s excellent Bill.”
“Order. We have three Members indicating that they wish to speak in the debate. I will start up the wind-ups just before 10.30 am, so that leaves around 10 minutes for each Member who wishes to speak.”
“We now move on to the Front Benchers. I think they may have worked out that there is more time than their allotted 10 minutes, although they are not required to take longer and I would like the mover to have a bit of time at the end to wind up.”
“I call the Minister to respond. He has a reasonable amount of time, but would he leave at least a couple of minutes at the end for the mover to respond?”
“I was present on the day the Chancellor came to launch the investment zone in my constituency, and of course I too welcome the investment into Boeing there. Does he accept that one of the other areas for future development in the investment zone is small modular reactors? A consortium is being developed in Sheffield with Sheffield Forgemasters, Rolls-Royce and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy to look at the future—not merely to develop the techniques for SMRs, but to start building SMRs in Sheffield. Would he be willing to look at that proposal and hopefully offer support for it?”
“This is hardly a new problem, is it? The Court decision was in 2018, yet last year we had the levelling-up Bill, which was really a planning Bill with a bit of levelling up added on—no mention of the issue there. In December we had major consultations on changes to the national planning policy framework—no mention of the issue there. The Committee wrote to the Minister and asked how many more consultations on planning issues there would be this year. We were given nine of them—no mention of the issue there. If it is such a serious issue, why has it taken the Government so long to act? It looks like the Government are making it up as they go along. This is a panicked response from the Government to the collapsing numbers of housing starts which the Minister simply wants to do something—anything—about.”
“The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee rightly drew attention to the National Audit Office report that highlighted the serious underfunding of the capital programme in the Department for Education, which is the real cause of these problems. That report also said: “DfE currently lacks comprehensive information on the extent and severity of potential safety issues across the school estate”. That is a damning indictment. The Secretary of State cannot stand up in this House today and say that our children are safe, because she does not know whether any more systemic failures of schools presenting safety problems are going to occur.”
“I do not doubt the Minister’s good intentions on house building, but does she accept that, according to her own Department’s figures, housing starts fell by 12% year on year in the first three months of this year? That is down to a figure of just more than 37,000 starts, which is half the figure needed to hit 300,000 homes a year. On that basis, does she conclude like me that not merely is her policy not succeeding in hitting the housing targets, but it is considerably contributing to their failure?”
“In the last year, a number of my constituents on the Westfield estate have had their homes and gardens flooded with raw sewage. Yorkshire Water accepts that it is its sewage, but does not accept responsibility to help with the clean-up. Will the Minister look at the legal position to ensure that water companies are held accountable? In the meantime, we should put pressure on Yorkshire Water and others to pay for the clean-up that my constituents are having to fund themselves.”
“That is very different from the situation facing someone who has to go to work, perhaps in a manual job on a low income, who loses out right through the process. We must reflect on how we can better help people in those circumstances.”
“First, let me declare my interest: I am vice chair of the all-party group, and also a recipient of a transplant six years ago. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right on this point. When I was having my chemo, the hospital kindly arranged it so that for several weeks I could go in on a Monday morning, then come down here by train, and go back on a Thursday and have my second dose. Also, throughout the whole process I was able to do my job on email. The nurses used to laugh at me when I had my stem cells harvested—my right hon. Friend will know about that; it took me three goes, four hours at a time—because during that process I would carry on doing my emails. They used to laugh at me, but they understood the process.”
“Order. Six Members have indicated that they would like to speak, which gives each of them about seven minutes. That is on a voluntary basis, but it would be helpful if Members followed that guideline.”
“We now move on to the Front Benchers, who have 10 minutes each as a minimum, although there is a bit of flexibility. Then, whatever time is left at the end of their contributions will be extra time for the Minister to respond in, which I am sure he will welcome.”
“When I was diagnosed with multiple myeloma six years ago, my GP gave me two pieces of advice: keep positive and keep active. The other day, I visited the wellbeing centre in my constituency, which is run by Sheffield Hallam University, the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Yorkshire Cancer Research. It is putting on a programme called Active Together to which people who are diagnosed with cancer can be referred by their consultant and have a bespoke programme of treatment involving physical activity, nutrition and psychological support to prepare them for surgery, and a programme after surgery to help them recover. Would the Secretary of State like to come to my constituency to visit this novel and innovative programme to see how it could be rolled out across the country and treat more cancers well in this way?”
“The Committee recently produced a report on levelling-up funding, which I hope the Minister has had a chance to read by now. Commenting on the current arrangements, we said that despite the Government’s commitment to reducing requirements for competitive bidding, we had seen no evidence that it had yet been implemented. We were also shocked to discover that the Department did not know how many “pots of money across Government contribute towards levelling up”. Does the Minister accept the Committee’s finding that the policy currently lacks “a long-term, substantive strategy and funding approach”, and does she agree that the Government need to sort this out if levelling up is to be delivered—given that, in principle, there would probably be widespread support for that on both sides of the House?”
“We have had a further commitment from the Government along similar lines. In response to a Select Committee report in 2019, the Government said: “The Government agrees with the Committee that, other than in exceptional circumstances, there is no good reason for houses to be sold on a leasehold basis.” Four years later, thousands more properties have been sold on an unacceptable basis, and the tenants, effectively, of those properties who have been left to pay exceptional costs are not able to get out of the lease without very high charges.”
“I am pleased that the Government have good intentions, but the Select Committee’s 2019 report had 52 recommendations. The Government accepted many of them completely and said they wanted to move towards accepting others and work out how that could be done. Since 2019, which was before the last general election, what have the Government actually done? Would the Minister confirm that all they have done in practice is to bring in measures to ensure that peppercorn ground rents are charged on new leasehold houses? That is the only thing they have done, out of all the recommendations they agreed to accept four years ago.”
“Such a procedure would mean easy redress where things are still going wrong. I am disappointed. The argument is not about whether we abolish leasehold, although it will be some time before leasehold disappears completely, if it ever does. What the Government could have done in the four years since the last general election, rather than waiting until after the next general election, is take steps to make sure that leasehold is completely abolished for new homes, to protect current leaseholders from unfair service charges and permission rights, and to give leaseholders the right to enfranchise themselves through a simple and reasonably cheap process. Why have the Government simply failed to do any of these things over the past four years?”
“In response to our report, the Government accepted that service charges for flats should be regularised. Why do we not have legislation in place on the right to challenge onerous permission rights and other charges? We suggested the idea of a housing court, and the Government suggested bringing in a new homes ombudsman, which they are doing. A housing court could have enabled leaseholders to simply challenge any unfair practices. The current arrangements are far too complicated and expensive for people to undertake themselves. The Select Committee also suggested a housing court for the Government’s private rented sector reforms, but the Government are loth to do this. There are an awful lot of housing problems that need to be addressed by a specialist and simplified procedure, which has not been introduced either.”
“Numerous leaseholders have come to me to say they did not know that their freehold had been sold to another company—it was sold without their knowledge. Why does that happen? Legislation on a right of first refusal could have been introduced very easily. I accept that flats are more complicated, and that the agreement of current leaseholders would be needed if we wanted to move towards a commonhold system, but the process should be simplified. The process, and commonhold itself, should be made easier. The Government have accepted the need to do that, but they have made no progress at all on commonhold in the past four years. Some cases, such as retirement properties and mixed-use properties, may be more challenging, but commonhold should be the default tenure for new properties. Why have the Government not legislated on that?”
“I am currently dealing with dozens of constituents on the Flockton estate, none of whom has had any response from their freeholder. This is simply unacceptable, and it could have been dealt with. Concerns have been raised with the Select Committee about the European convention on human rights and the right to private property. Very experienced counsel came before the Committee to explain how this could be done in the public interest. I do not believe the complications are so difficult that the Government cannot fix them. Why have they not legislated to give the leaseholders of houses the same right of first refusal as leaseholders of flats? That would be simple legislation. Four years later, why has it not happened?”
“The Law Commission, the APPG, the Select Committee and others have done enough work to inform the Government on how to go about this. Why has there been no progress on any of these issues? Enfranchisement is a frustration for so many leaseholders who are trying to buy their property. The Minister mentioned Coppen Estates, which is in my constituency too. I cannot get a response from the company on behalf of my constituents until I write at least two recorded-delivery letters to a post box in a grotty property somewhere—that is how it operates. Coppen Estates does not respond, because it keeps receiving the ground rents in the meantime. Why have such companies not been legislated against so that people can buy their freehold without having to wait months, or in some cases years?”
“Yes, it is complicated to legislate on this issue, but in the meantime it is extremely complicated for leaseholders who face so many obstacles, particularly in buying the freehold of their property. Not only is it complicated; it is also expensive. Look at what could have been done. We could have banned leasehold for new houses. That legislation would not have been complicated, and the Government committed to doing it in response to the Select Committee’s report. Four years later, why are we still waiting? The Select Committee also got Government agreement on further restrictions on ground rents for new properties, which was done, but why do we not have simple legislation on service charges, onerous permission rights and other conditions?”
“The Minister has spoken of a lot of support and commitment to doing something at some stage in the future. Why is it taking so long? The Select Committee was pleased with the Government’s response to our 2019 report. We do not always get a positive response to our reports from the Government, so we welcomed their commitment to doing so many things, without caveat, including their commitment to consider further reforms in due course. I give credit to the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform. The Father of the House—the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley)—and my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) have done a lot of work to build on that over the years, as has the Select Committee. Why is leasehold reform taking so long?”
“The Minister has just made two commitments. One is banning the sale of new leasehold homes, and the other is bringing in a new process for enfranchisement. Is that a commitment to have both of those in the Bill that will be presented in this Parliament?”
“As the Chair, I obviously have to be scrupulously independent in these debates, but I just have to say that Angela Foulkes, the principal of the Sheffield College, wrote to me to draw my attention to this issue. I said that I was chairing the debate and could not contribute, and I am not going to.”
“I welcome any increase in funding, however inadequate. The Minister mentioned Ukraine and covid—of course he has—but the reality in South Yorkshire is that bus journeys have fallen by 50% since this Government came to power in 2010. Given the great promises made by the previous Prime Minister but one about the expansion in bus services that we would see, and given that the Minister will have done an impact assessment on the proposals, will he tell us by what percentage bus journeys are expected to rise by April 2025; or will the measures simply slow the decline that has been taking place for the past 13 years?”
“When will we see from the Secretary of State the workforce plan that has been promised over and over again—it was supported by the Chancellor when he was Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee—to deliver the amount of training we need and the efforts to retain the GPs we already have?”
“First, I thank the GPs in my constituency and their staff for the job that they are doing for my constituents under the most enormous pressure. I want to include in particular GPs’ receptionists in that for the up-front service they give; there is particular pressure on them. GPs—often in their 50s—are saying to me that they want to leave and give up not because of pensions but because of the overbearing workload they have, and the incredible centralisation and red tape coming from NHS England at national level. They look for new GPs coming through and see so many trainees and qualified doctors now going off to Canada, New Zealand and Australia because the terms and conditions of work are better there.”
“To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if he will make a statement on arrangements in place to record the number of voters who attend at a polling station and are denied a vote because they are not in possession of valid ID.”
“If it was, and meeter-greeters are going to turn people away and the numbers are not going to be collected, how can it be said that it is the Government’s intention to collect information that includes the number of people who are turned away? Surely both elements have to be added together in order to get the total numbers correct and to properly assess the impact of the measure.”
“It said that when meeter-greeters turn someone away who does not have the voter ID that they should have, those numbers will not be counted. I have a simple question for the Minister: is it the Government’s intention that that information will be collected, so the total number of people who attend a polling station but are denied a vote because they do not have the requisite ID will be counted? Was the statement made by Peter Stanyon to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee correct? If it was correct, why did the Electoral Commission issue different advice this week? Was that information incorrect? Or, if it was correct, was the information provided by the Electoral Commission this week given with the consent and approval of the Government?”
“At a recent Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee hearing, Peter Stanyon, the chief executive of Association of Electoral Administrators, made this important point: “The returning officers are required where they have a meeter-greeter to report those they have advised at the door and turned away, and those at the desk as well. They will be reported as two separate things…The base standard is it is at the desk, because that is where the ballot papers will be and that is where the question is asked. Where there is a meeter-greeter, the commission is asking for that statistic and the Government are asking for that statistic as well.” So two sets of statistics will be collected. That seems fairly clear. The problem is that this week the Electoral Commission said something very different.”
“I was not my intention to get into an argument about the appropriateness of the policy. I was trying to recognise that it will be important to know the impact of the voter ID regulations once the elections have taken place. When people go to polling stations and are turned away because do not have the requisite ID, will those numbers be recorded? We know that if someone speaks to a polling clerk and is turned away, the total number of those people—not their names—will be recorded. But because of concerns about the collection of people around polling stations, some authorities will have meeters and greeters outside who will check in advance, perhaps when people are in a queue, whether they have the required ID. We do not know whether people who are turned away at that point will have their numbers recorded—that is the confusion.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just after I started asking my urgent question, I received a letter from the chair of the Electoral Commission John Pullinger, in which he says that the only data recorded will be those recorded by the polling clerks when people get to the desks to try to cast their vote and do not have voter ID. He accepts that the numbers of people met by meeters and greeters and turned away without voter ID cannot be recorded, which will compromise the data that is collected by the polling clerk, so the Electoral Commission will publish two sets of data: one from polling stations without meeters and greeters and one from polling stations with them. How can that be a sensible and co-ordinated information collection to show the actual impact of the measure?”
“If the Minister came to my constituency and talked to residents waiting for a bus, which will probably not turn up, how would he go about persuading them that their bus services now are as good as when the Conservatives came to power in 2010?”
“Four Members wish to speak, and we have 30 minutes, so if hon. Members could divide that into seven and a half minutes each, and stick to that, it would be really appreciated. I call Sarah Champion.”
“I thank all hon. Members for keeping to time. We will move on to the wind-ups now. Each Front-Bench speaker has 10 minutes, or effectively 11, given that we have a bit of extra time.”