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 26 of 95.
“One area, of course, where we do not have problems with human rights clauses being inserted is the EU. The Minister is interested in jobs. I have a small company in my constituency, Poco Nido, which employs four people. The owner of that company, Catherine Lobley, has told me that, since the end of December, she has not had a single shipment of goods getting through to the EU. The goods are caught up in customs and have been stuck there for three weeks. She says that the whole system has collapsed. Her 10-year-old business will be destroyed, with the jobs, within a month unless the Minister acts. When will the Minister ensure that the Brexit deal that the Government promised is actually delivered in practice?”
“Does the Secretary of State accept that if those with no recourse to public funds are not housed, “Everyone In” will have to be renamed “Some people in, and others left outside”? Surely that cannot be acceptable.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for the statement. Looking back to last March, it is undeniable that the Everyone In initiative was a success, and I congratulate the councils, the charities, the Government and, of course, Dame Louise Casey. It was successful because it did precisely what it said: everyone, without exception, was taken off the streets and found accommodation. Does “Everyone In” still mean that while there is a public health emergency, councils have the right and the responsibility to house everyone, including those with no recourse to public funds? Recently, local authorities have told the Select Committee that there is a great deal of confusion about their legal position.”
“The National Housing Federation says that there is £10 billion of remedial work to be done in the social housing sector, and more for council housing properties, yet the only automatic right that social housing landlords have to any funding is for help with the removal of ACM cladding; everything else they are likely to have to pay for. Tenants are going to have to pay through rent increases, cuts to future maintenance or cuts to the house building programme, none of which is acceptable. So we have a perverse situation where the social housing landlord, as a freeholder, could be ensuring that tenants have to pay for the remediation of properties next door that have been subject to the right to buy. That cannot be right. All these matters need resolving. We hope that the Minister does so on his visit to the Select Committee.”
“That is a real problem that the Government have to address. I welcome that the Government are going to introduce a levy and a financial contribution from the industry, but we appear to be in a position where they cannot tell us whether the money raised from the levy will be in addition to the £3.5 billion or whether it will be taken from the £3.5 billion—in other words, that the Treasury will get some of that money back. That, to my view, would be wrong. The Minister is going to come to the Select Committee on 8 March; hopefully, we will be a bit wiser after that visit. Finally, we have talked a lot about leaseholders, but what about social housing tenants?”
“All the other works, which for many leaseholders are as substantial in cost as cladding remediation, are not covered, and of course that funding does not cover buildings below 18 metres. The Government have come up with a loan scheme for buildings below 18 metres, but that places the loan charge on the freeholder. Surely, we are back to the same problems: if we cannot interfere with the contractual relationship between the freeholder and the leaseholder—according to the Minister, with respect to the amendments before us from the Opposition and the hon. Member for Stevenage, we cannot—then surely that is a problem for the Government’s loan scheme too, and if freeholders are going to walk away from a direct charge on properties, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said, they will walk away from a loan too.”
“Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who raised this issue a number of times in the Select Committee when he was a member, showed that freeholders are often quite small companies that, where they were not responsible for the initial development, simply collect ground rent. If faced with the cost of remediation, they would simply walk away. Those amendments will not get the work done. That is the fundamental issue. We want to see it done without leaseholders having to pay for it. Turning to who should pay, certainly, the Government have put on the table £3.5 billion in addition to the £1.6 billion, but that does not include anything other than cladding remediation.”
“Again, we said: “The Government must recommit to the principle that leaseholders should not pay anything towards the cost of remediating historical building safety defects…for which they were not responsible.” That is very clear. The question is who should pay: the initial developer—the Government could help to co-ordinate action against them—the taxpayer, of course, or the industry as a whole? Unfortunately, the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland)—I very much agreed with the sentiments of his comments—and by the Labour Front Benchers seek to place responsibility on the freeholder. For reasons that the Minister gave, those amendments cut across the contractual relationship between freeholder and leaseholder. The hon.”
“First, may I send my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)? When he was Secretary of State, he and I discussed our respective illnesses, and I really feel for him and his family at this very difficult time. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has discussed the issue of cladding remediation and fire safety works on many occasions. In June, we made it clear that “residents are in no way to blame” for defects from cladding “and it is our view that they should bear none of the cost of remediation.” We repeated those sentiments in our prelegislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer; I look forward to more details. In the meantime, will he confirm that the loan will be a charge on the freeholder, that there will be no addition to the debt of any individual leaseholder, and that it will not affect the valuation of leasehold properties? On the money that is to be raised from the levy and financial contributions, will that be in addition to the £3.5 billion that the Government have announced, or will it go to offset the amount of the £3.5 billion that the Government will have to find?”
“Finally, will he confirm that there is no help in his statement for councils and housing associations, and that as a result, to carry out essential safety work, they are going to have to put up rents, cut maintenance or cut the number of affordable homes that they can build?”
“On behalf of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I thank the Secretary for his statement and welcome it—as far as it goes, because in terms of the Select Committee recommendations, it only goes so far. I invite him to come back to the Select Committee to discuss the issues in more detail shortly after the recess. First, immediately, will he confirm that as a result of the loan scheme, no leaseholder will be placed in negative equity? Secondly, has he done any assessment of the total amount of additional non-cladding costs to deal with building safety that will fall on leaseholders?”
“That will give local government the certainty to be able to plan ahead in a way that makes the best use of the resources available to it and gives the best value for money for its constituents.”
“My Select Committee may look at this issue again, because until we sort out the problem of social care funding, the rest of local government finance will always remain challenged and not properly addressed. The Local Government Association emphasised again that it understands, as does the Select Committee, precisely why the Government could only give a one-year settlement this year. However, as well as asking the Government to sort out the long-term funding of social care, we want to say as strongly as we can to them that local government must have a four-year settlement as soon as possible, by which we mean for the financial year from 2022 onwards.”
“The 4.6% extra spending for councils next year is welcome, but it is clear that the costs of adult social care and children’s social care, rising above inflation in the future, cannot continue to be funded by council tax and business rates. It is simply not sustainable, so finding another way forward to fund social care is essential. I draw the Secretary of State’s attention again to the joint Select Committee report published nearly four years ago, which the Government still have not responded to. In that report, we put forward a social care premium as a solution, similar to arrangements that have worked for the long term in Germany and Japan. The Government have not yet come back to us.”
“Some of those councils may have particular problems, some may have created particular problems and others may be badly hit by covid, but in the end, it reflects a long-term problem for councils. As Rob Whiteman said, those 12 councils are probably only the tip of the iceberg. Many other councils could be entering very similar grounds for having to come to the Government for extra help in the near term, as their position substantially worsens. That is not a sustainable position for the long term. Councillor Jamieson and Councillor Watts both said that when looking to the future of local government finance, we simply have to sort out the funding of social care.”
“Estimates from the LGA and others show about a £5 billion gap before covid hit, due to councils facing the biggest cuts of any part of the public sector since 2010 and the rising costs of social care. Those pressures have led to really heavy cuts to important services such as road safety, bus services, libraries, street cleaning and many others. The position is unsustainable. Rob Whiteman, the chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, told the Select Committee the other day that he knew of 12 authorities that have had to go to Government to ask for extra capitalisation of revenue expenditure, to ensure that their books can balance.”
“That needs to be monitored, because we can all see that, as the economy hits rocky times in the next 12 months and more people lose their jobs and more businesses are liquidated, councils will need extra support. We do not know what the ongoing costs of covid will be or how long the lockdown will extend for, so we still cannot estimate all the pressures on councils for the next financial year. I hope the Government will retain a degree of flexibility about any further support that councils may need in the next 12 months. Of course, the costs of covid come on top of a very precarious situation for local government finance as a whole and for many local councils in particular.”
“Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), but he referred to the problems faced by some councils that do not run their leisure services directly, and that is equally true of Sheffield. Ours is run by an arm’s length trust, and because the losses of the trust are paid for by the council, with the council paying more than £12 million to keep our leisure services sustainable, that is not regarded as a loss of council income but a council cost—extra expenditure—and has not been compensated for in the same way. There is an unfairness there that affects many authorities in the country, and it needs addressing. The Government’s scheme to compensate councils for losses in council tax and business rate collection is welcome, but it is only for 75% of the losses.”
“Recently, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee held hearings into local government finance, and we heard from Councillor James Jamieson, chair of the LGA, and Councillor Richard Watts, chair of the LGA resources board, which showed how the LGA works cross-party. They both gave us the same message: a recognition of the help that the Government have given to councils to meet the costs of the covid crisis, but also a recognition that those costs, particularly the loss of revenue that has affected many councils in different ways, have not been fully compensated. They estimated a gap of around £2.6 billion between the money that councils spent and have not received in income, and what the Government have compensated them for. It is not often that I agree with the right hon.”
“I declare an interest as I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I also echo the thanks that the Secretary of State and shadow Secretary of State have rightly given to local authorities, councillors, and their staff for the incredible work they have done for our communities in the past 12 months. Whether that work was particular to covid-related issues, or whether it involved social care, public health, environmental services, paying business grants, or keeping day-to-day essential services such as refuse collection going, they have been a credit to our communities and we should thank them for their work.”
“What recent discussions he has had with representatives of military charities on strengthening the armed forces covenant; and if he will make a statement.”
“I am sure that the Minister will agree that local authorities play an important role in implementing the national covenant. In Sheffield, extra priority is given to ex-servicemen when it comes to the right to social housing. There is also a wraparound service that includes employment and skills, and mental health. All that is overseen by a council-appointed ex-servicemen’s champion, Councillor Tony Damms, who works with local charities, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, and the Sheffield and district ex-service associations; they all work closely together. I am sure that the Minister will agree that charities and the council working together in that way is a model for the implementation of the national covenant.”
“It is about all buildings where people could be at risk, including residential homes, care homes and so on. It is also not just about cladding, but about all potential fire risks in buildings, such as dangerous balconies, faulty fire doors, missing firebreaks and faulty installation —all the things together that need putting right to make the buildings that people live in safe. Finally, we talk about numbers, but in the end behind all these numbers are individuals and families living in potentially dangerous buildings with debts around their necks that they cannot afford to pay, unable to sell their homes if they so wish. We owe it to them to get action on this issue immediately.”
“The leaseholder should not pay, and we know that developers and others eventually should be held accountable, but as the Father of the House has just explained, so many potential organisations could be held accountable and the legal arguments will go on and on. Many of the developers have gone out of business and do not exist any more. Yes, we should pursue them, but in the meantime, the Government have to stand up and commit far more funding than is in the Building Safety Bill, which simply does not cover anything like the £15 billion of potential costs. Eventually there might need to be an industrial levy to pay part of it, and it is for the Government to come forward with recommendations, if they so choose. The issue is not just about high-rise buildings over six storeys—I think the Minister has accepted that point.”
“In our 2020 report, we recommended: “The Building Safety Fund will need to be increased to address all fire safety defects in every high-risk residential building—potentially costing up to £15 billion.” Then we did pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill, and we said: “The Government must recommit to the principle that leaseholders should not pay anything towards the cost of remediating historical building safety defects”. We have been very clear on all those matters: leaseholders should not pay. They should not pay some unidentified, affordable amount or fair amount, and neither should we get into a position of offering them loans to pay off the debts, because what do loans do but put leaseholders in more debt? At the same time, loans would put many of them into negative equity.”
“I begin by thanking the Father of the House for his very kind comments. Certainly, we have worked together on these issues. I congratulate all the members of the Select Committee as well. We have looked at the issue of building safety, particularly cladding, on a number of occasions, and we have produced a number of reports, all of them unanimously. It is to the credit of all members of the Committee—I notice that the next speaker will be the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is an important member of the Select Committee—that we have done so on a cross-party basis. I will quote one or two of our very clear recommendations. In 2019, we said that the Government should provide funding to remove “any form of combustible cladding…from any high-rise or high-risk building”, regardless of height.”
“I was asking the director of public health in Sheffield the other day about the figures for contact tracing. He says that in the NHS Test and Trace system—not the Public Health England one, but the NHS one—the current figures are 59%, and the 40% not contacted are passed on down to the local level, the city council’s contact tracing service, which is then contacting 75% of the people the national system could not contact. Why, then, do the Government not give more resources and more responsibility to the local council and the director of public health? In that way, we could contact more people at far less cost than the national system.”
“Will the Minister accept that a loan scheme that puts an additional debt on leaseholders is not a fair way out of this problem and that he should instead look to the industry and to Government to cover the cost of putting these defects right?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker—happy new year to you. I am sure it would be remiss of me if I did not say that your local constituency football team have made rather a good start to this year. In saying happy new year to the Minister as well, I am sure he would want it to be a happy new year for all leaseholders, but he did not really answer the question from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). Even if a loan scheme were introduced to cover the costs of these defects, and even if it was a very low-interest scheme, that would still be a capital charge on properties—a capital charge that would be a considerable financial burden on leaseholders, would put many of them into negative equity, and would mean that their properties were unsaleable.”
“Wearing a face mask is very important, but I saw a group of young people walking along in Meadowhall shopping centre the other day, and they simply said, “Oh, we just tell them we have asthma, if anyone asks us.” We need the police to have powers to make people wear face masks and be required to produce evidence of an exemption, if they have one. Finally, recently Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire were in tier 4, and Sheffield was in tier 3. People were driving over the border to Meadowhall and Drakehouse to do their shopping. The police had no powers under the rules to enforce the requirement that people should not travel over the border for such a purpose. We need to sort out that type of situation as well.”
“I am told that it will take about eight minutes to do one of the covid vaccinations, compared with two minutes for a flu vaccine. Why the difference? There should not be one. The guidelines sent out with the rules even explain how GP practices should cut up the waste packaging once the vaccine has been delivered. That is the sort of bureaucracy and nonsense that we need to sort out. This week, when I asked for information about which GP practices would be giving the vaccine for the first time, I was told that I could not have that information unless someone higher up in the NHS approved it. Sorry, but I am entitled to that information; more importantly, the public of Sheffield are entitled to that information. We need to stop that bureaucracy as well. Also, can we stop passing regulations that cannot be enforced?”
“This week, some of the primary care networks were told that the vaccine would be delivered on Friday; it arrived yesterday, so the practices had to scramble around to get people to come in at very short notice in order to deal with the vaccinations within the three days. Other practices were told that they would have the vaccine this week and then that it would not arrive until next week, having made the appointments for people to come in this week. That is not acceptable and it needs to be sorted out. Secondly, there is the bureaucracy. I was pleased that the Secretary of State said earlier that he was going to strip out the training requirements for people giving the vaccine—absolutely right, and those should not have been there in the first place.”
“I will support the proposals, because of the pressure on our NHS and the briefings that I have had from the hospital trust in Sheffield that not only should we protect health service workers, but patients who need cancer and other treatments will not get that treatment unless we deal with this matter urgently. The clinical commissioning group and GP practices in Sheffield are enthusiastic, ready and willing to get the vaccine delivered. They tell me that within a couple of weeks they can be delivering up to 30,000 to 40,000 vaccinations a week in Sheffield, so that by Easter a majority of the population will have been vaccinated. There are two caveats. First, they need the vaccine to be delivered. Already, we have had problems.”
“If they are, on an unforeseen basis, will the Government stand ready to provide extra money for councils if they can show that their costs are in excess of what the Government are so far calculating?”
“On behalf of the Select Committee, may I join both Front Benchers in thanking councils up and down the country for the brilliant job they have done in keeping services going and communities safe in the past few terrible months? The Government are forecasting a 4.5% increase in spending power for local authorities, and the assumption there is that councils will put up council tax by 5%, including the 3% for social care, all in one year. Although councils have the discretion to decide on that, will he confirm that the spending power in his statement assumes that all councils will put their council tax up by 5%? There is a forecast in the statement about ongoing covid costs. Does he accept that those costs might be greater?”
“The ban on evictions of tenants was welcome, but it did include cases of antisocial behaviour. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has indicated that now that the ban is being lifted, the courts will give priority to dealing with cases of antisocial behaviour. However, I have two very serious cases in my constituency, and we are told that it could be well into the new year before they are dealt with. What priority has the Lord Chancellor directed the courts to give to cases of antisocial behaviour? If Members have particular cases in their constituency, what action can they take to ensure that they are dealt with expeditiously?”
“The business rate relief for retailers this year has been welcome, but it was obviously not sufficient for Debenhams and Arcadia and all their employees, who will tragically lose their jobs just before Christmas. There is a fundamental unfairness in the fact that Amazon pays only 0.7% of its turnover in business rates and high street retailers pay 2% or more. Last year, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee suggested that the Government look at bringing in a digital sales tax and use the money to provide long-term business rate relief for retailers on the high street. Given that the Government promised to look at business rate reform in 2015, will they now get on with it and give that certainty of reduced business rates to the high street as a matter of urgency?”
“May I declare an interest in this question, as I suffer from myeloma, a form of blood cancer? We all recognise and applaud the incredible work that the NHS and its staff have done for us all in the past few months. In terms of the future, however, does the Chancellor recognise that much research for cancer is funded by charitable donations, which have fallen significantly during recent months for reasons that everyone can understand? To ensure that treatments continue to improve in the future, will he agree to fully fund cancer research to make up the difference in charitable donations, at least for the next few years?”
“To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.”
“They are trapped in properties that they cannot sell, that they often cannot insure and where they are having to pay for waking watches, and wondering how on earth they are going to pay the bills that could arrive on their doormats at any time.”
“In the meantime, if developers have gone out of business or are refusing to pay, does the Minister accept that, at least in the interim, the Government are going to have to step in and fund all the costs? If the Minister accepts that point, does he also accept that the £1.6 billion so far made available to remove dangerous cladding will be totally inadequate? The Select Committee heard that to make all high-rise buildings totally safe and remove all defects, the total bill could be as high as £15 billion. Leaseholders should not have to pay that. Finally, does the Minister accept that, without assurances on these points, many people are going to have a very miserable Christmas?”
“First, will he confirm very clearly and straightforwardly that leaseholders should not have to pay any of the costs of removing dangerous cladding from their homes, as has been the Government’s policy for some time? Those leaseholders bought their properties in good faith. They have not done anything wrong and they should not be financially distressed as a result. If the Minister thinks that leaseholders should have to pay something—the Building Safety Minister said to the Select Committee that he thought an affordable amount was reasonable—how would he define an affordable amount? The Building Safety Minister said it was something that did not bankrupt an individual. However, if leaseholders are not going to pay—I hope the Minister will confirm that point—I accept that he should pursue developers, freeholders and others.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to ask my urgent question. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has just carried out prelegislative scrutiny of the draft Building Safety Bill. In general, the Bill is very welcome. It implements the recommendations of the Hackitt report, post Grenfell. However, clause 89 contains provisions for leaseholders to be charged a building safety charge. That could cover future costs, but it could also be used to recover the cost of dealing with historical defects, such as the removal of dangerous cladding. That is the concern. I have a number of questions for the Minister.”
“Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), on behalf of the all-party group on football? Will he agree to meet us to discuss the problem of the EFL and meet Rick Parry, its chair, to have a look again at the financial assistance that is going to be needed to ensure that when spectators go back to football they will actually have a team to support?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Three weeks ago, a number of MPs met Rick Parry, the chair of the English Football League, to discuss the crisis facing EFL clubs. He told us that 10 clubs were unlikely to be able to pay their wages this month, and if substantial financial assistance was not available soon a number would go out of business. I have not heard anything in the statement today that would give reassurance to the EFL and the clubs. I am sure the Minister recognises that clubs are not like any other business; if one closes, fans cannot go down the road and simply buy their football from another club. Fans give a lifetime of support to their club and clubs are at the heart of their community. So will the Minister now respond to the letter that I sent him, along with the hon.”
“Does the Housing Minister understand the great concern and upset that the change of policy has caused for leaseholders, who thought they would bear no costs but could now be faced with substantial bills? Will he explain the change of policy or, better still, go back to the original policy the Secretary of State identified that the costs should not fall on leaseholders at all?”
“Could the Housing Minister clarify the Government’s policy on what costs leaseholders should have to bear for the removal of cladding? On 20 July, the Secretary of State, in a written statement, very helpfully said: “The Government are clear that it is unacceptable for leaseholders to have to worry about the cost of fixing historic safety defects”. —[ Official Report , 20 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 89WS.] However, by the time we got to 16 October, the Housing Minister himself said we should look for solutions “that protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs”. So, not any costs, but unaffordable costs. When the Minister with responsibility for building safety came to the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, he could only define “affordable” as costs that did not make someone bankrupt.”
“If dealing with homelessness has to be a priority for councils, which certainly it should be, will the Minister make it a priority for Government to make sure that councils have the extra resources they need directly to continue delivering the services that people in the private rented sector will need in the coming, very trying months?”
“First, congratulations are due on the efforts that were made to get rough sleepers off the streets from March onwards. Great work was done by councils with voluntary organisations and with good support financially from the Government as well. The real pressure on councils now, I am told by my own city of Sheffield, is from people presenting as homeless from the private rented sector. An increase has led Sheffield City Council, which is very good at dealing with these matters, to have 80 families now in hotels and another 200 in temporary accommodation. That will cost the council around £500,000 extra in this financial year.”