Andy Slaughter
Main Page: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith)(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I fear that the Bill is a hotch-potch of unco-ordinated policies, as Labour Front Benchers have said, and it will not deliver a strengthened voluntary and community sector. It will instead deliver punitive sanctions on those least able to stand up to them, particularly in the area of housing. I know that from experience in my local authority of Hammersmith and Fulham, which is doted on by the Secretary of State and Ministers. As mentioned previously, that council was said to have showed the way by merging backroom services and cutting senior salaries rather than making front-line cuts.
I urge the Secretary of State to look at the budget for the next three years, which last week was published—or sneaked out, I should say—by the council. Less than 1% of cuts will come from mergers with other councils, as was trumpeted, and less than 1% will come from cuts in senior salaries. Yet fully 50%—more than £13 million in the first year—will come from cuts in children’s services and adult social services, including the closure of most Sure Start centres.
The Mail on Sunday reported just before Christmas that one officer in Hammersmith and Fulham has been paid £1,000 a day for three years—£700,000 paid into a private business run by that single officer, which is more than all the other cuts in senior management put together. That has been described as “good value for money” by the Conservative council. Since this officer’s job is the systematic demolition of council estates in the borough and the redevelopment of needed community assets, I suppose that the Conservative council would think that that was good value for money, but I wonder whether that is what the Secretary of State meant by looking at high salaries.
Three aspects of the Bill have been greeted by hollow laughter by my constituents. One is the community right to challenge. What local organisations taking over community assets means in Hammersmith and Fulham is that all the money is withdrawn, the staff are sacked and in some cases the premises are sold—Sure Start centres and libraries, for example. Then the community is told, “If you want to run these centres on your own behalf with no money from the council, and sometimes with no premises, then go ahead”. That is called the big society.
As for assets of community value, what use is that policy if there is no right of first refusal and no support from the council? What we have seen in Hammersmith is a fire sale of all community buildings—buildings in which literally hundreds of voluntary sector organisations operate. I heard just this morning that Palingswick house in the middle of Hammersmith—a building that 22 active local voluntary groups have made their home for many years—is to be sold off to open a free school for children from outside the borough. Nobody in the constituency has asked for that. The same is true of the Irish cultural centre in Hammersmith, of Shepherd’s Bush village hall and the Sands End centre. Those are vibrant and successful community assets and there is no opportunity for the local community to continue to run them.
As for neighbourhood planning, almost every planning scheme is a joint venture between the council and a developer. In order to build new luxury offices for councillors and senior officers, we have 15-storey tower blocks along the riverside on the site of a community cinema and homes provided by the Pocklington trust for people with visual impairments.
The 100-year-old Shepherd’s Bush market is being destroyed to make way for luxury housing. The air rights relating to the car park of an old people’s home in my constituency are being sold to a private school, which means that no light will reach the old people, but it will make £200,000 or so for the council. Furthermore, in west Kensington the right of local people to take over their own estate, provided by legislation that the Government claim to support, is being vetoed by the council so that a private developer can demolish 750 good-quality council homes in one of the largest developments in the country. I wish that I had more time in which to talk about the impact on my constituents’ housing: about the lack of security of tenure, and about the lack of a duty in relation to homeless people.
Jeremy Corbyn
My hon. Friend’s constituency and mine have similar characteristics. For instance, 30% of members of our communities live in private rented accommodation. Does my hon. Friend share my horror about the prospect that the Bill will force more people into unregulated private tenancies?
Mr Slaughter
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I hope that Government Members have read the comments of Shelter, which has said:
“The proposed changes sever the link between homelessness and recognising the need for a settled home by allowing councils to discharge homeless households into the insecure PRS”
—the private rented sector—
“rather than find them a settled home.”
It is a shameful day for the country when a tradition that all parties have supported for many decades is abandoned: the tradition of ensuring that poorer families have stable and affordable homes. Given all that they have said over the past five years about the need to provide more good-quality affordable housing, the Liberal Democrats above all should not vote for provisions that will destroy security of tenure and the opportunity for people to live in stable homes.
Let me end by making two points that I shall have no time to amplify. The Bill’s provisions for Gypsies and Travellers are also shameful, because they constitute a cynical way of not providing Gypsy and Traveller sites. That is dog-whistle politics.
Barbara Keeley
I believe that the Bill contains the first indication of cuts in Sure Start, which we expected despite what the Prime Minister said about protecting it.
Mr Slaughter
I am grateful for that intervention, because it has given me a little more time to amplify the point that I was making.
In view of what has been said today about provision for Gypsy and Traveller sites, I think that Members should sometimes examine their rhetoric. The single most important issue is that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wishes to cut all provision for Gypsies and Travellers: both the capital funding and the requirement for local authorities to provide sites for them. If there were enough sites, there would not be unlawful encampments. It is shocking that the Government should wilfully close their eyes to that fact and simply introduce civil and criminal penalties for Gypsies and Travellers, and they should examine their conscience.
Finally, let me echo the words of Sir Christopher Kelly, who said that the end of the standards regime allowed councils, such as Hammersmith and Fulham, to get away with what they were doing. That provision should also be rejected.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
We have had a lively debate, with some 40 speakers. There is a clear division between the Government and the Opposition on the Bill, and some Government Members have expressed concerns. There have been some excellent speeches.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) put it well when he said that the Bill was a missed opportunity. He said that the general power of competence should sit within a constitutional framework —of course it should—and that there would be a void in the standards of conduct for councillors. He questioned the powers that the Secretary of State wants to take for himself, in particular the power to impose shadow mayors, which many hon. Members have spoken about. He said that the Bill signalled the end of the provision of social housing.
Similar concerns were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who said that the Bill was atrocious. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) reminded us of the era of “Cathy Come Home”. She said that her test was whether it was a hand-up or a handout, and that the Bill failed the test. Similarly, the housing section of the Bill was the main concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Opposition Members think that the Bill has the potential to raise levels of homelessness, which is a serious concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) feared that the disadvantaged had no voice and said the Bill was bad on many levels for the poorest in our communities.
Hon. Members raised concerns about other aspects of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) made it clear that although we understand the aspirations of the Bill, we have suspicions about the outcomes. There are problems with the drafting of the Bill. A big issue is that it is silent on how to settle competing claims. How will claims be settled among the views of a neighbourhood forum, a local authority and a mayor? My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) warned that mayors could undermine local communities and councillors. The hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) and a number of other hon. Members disagreed with the imposition of shadow mayors. We heard a bid for the independence of Keighley. Unfortunately, that will not come about through a local referendum, as such referendums will only be advisory. Another matter of concern to hon. Members from all parts of the House was EU fines.
For many Opposition Members, the key issues that underlie the Bill are the unfairness of the local government settlement and the absence of the resources necessary to build capacity in communities. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood, for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and for North West Durham (Pat Glass), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, and my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), spoke eloquently about the problems caused by cuts.
Barbara Keeley
There is not time, I am afraid.
The Secretary of State told council leaders that they were in charge of about £38 billion each year, no strings attached. Since then, the Conservative-led Government have subjected council leaders to savage front-loaded cuts and to a stream of exhortations on what they should and should not do with their budgets. Ministers have told councils that they have a duty to preserve library services, that they should treat voluntary organisations fairly, that they have no justification to tighten eligibility for social care and that they should not issue redundancy notices immediately. Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers are telling councils to cut senior management posts, merge services with other councils and cut posts that Ministers see as non-jobs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith told us that senior executive pay cuts and shared service cuts each contribute only 1% of the cuts that are needed, whereas 50% of the savings will be made by cuts to adult services and children’s services, including a disturbing 60% cut in funding for Sure Start—a service that the Prime Minister said the Tories would protect. My hon. Friend told us about an individual who was paid £700,000 in consultancy fees over four years, while drawing a £50,000 pension from the same council. On hearing such facts, we have to question why Hammersmith and Fulham is the apple of the Secretary of State’s eye. Indeed, the Secretary of State has called any council leader who could not predict cuts of £40 million to £100 million negligent
“to the point of stupidity”.
DCLG Ministers also want to direct councils on small details. They want to tell them how often they should empty their bins, ban them from putting out newsletters and tell them to reduce street signs and bollards. That is the background to the 126 new secondary powers that the Secretary of State wants to take in the Bill.
The general power of competence should give councils the freedom to act ambitiously on behalf of local residents, but the Secretary of State wants to take major powers to restrict how councils may use it and attach conditions to its use. He also wants the power to
“amend, repeal, revoke or disapply”
any statutory provision affecting or overlapping with the general power. That is a very broad power for a Secretary of State to ask for, and it undermines the concept of localism. It raises serious concerns, particularly because, as we have heard, he wants to direct councils on every aspect of their work, from how they manage their budgets through to what they should do about street signs.
The Secretary of State wants to order 12 of our cities to change their governance model to the mayoral model, and to appoint their current leaders as shadow mayors. Furthermore, he wants the power to order any local authority to start operating a mayoral governance model, subject only to a later referendum. Where is the belief in localism in all that?
The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), said in September:
“This Government will let councils and communities decide how to organise themselves. We don’t presume to know more than local people about how their area should be run.”
However, the Government do presume to know more than local people, because the Secretary of State wants the power to dictate to councils exactly which model of governance they must adopt. Also, there is no level playing field for councils that opt to retain cabinet or committee systems, as they will not be able to bid for new powers in the same way as elected mayors using the new provisions in the Bill.
To Labour Members, the scrutiny powers of local government are a key aspect of democratic accountability. In the context of the Government’s massive and unnecessary reorganisation of the NHS, about which much has been said today, powers for local councils to scrutinise new health commissioning arrangements are more important than ever, and councillors should be given adequate powers to do that. It was interesting to hear hon. Members of all parties refer to that matter. Councils opting for the committee governance system will not even be required to have a scrutiny committee. We believe that to ensure accountability, those councils should have at least one scrutiny committee, in line with councils that have a mayor or council leader.
The Bill proposes local referendums, a community right to challenge, a community right to buy and a duty on councils to maintain lists of assets of community value. As we have heard, Labour would welcome some of those proposals if the legislation introducing them were better thought through. As it stands, the Bill provokes more questions than it answers. It will lead to extra burdens on local councils, which are already struggling to maintain local services in the face of the Government’s swingeing, front-loaded budget cuts. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) highlighted how the community right to buy, which has been tried in Scotland, is an empty gesture if it is without funding.
On local referendums, we support greater public engagement in the political process, but much more should be decided locally. For instance, we do not understand how it can be up to the Secretary of State to decide what is a local matter. The proposals on the new community right to challenge and the duty on local authorities to maintain a list of assets of community value are ill thought through. Despite there being no definition of the term “assets of community value”, 10 powers are proposed for the Secretary of State to make regulations on those lists.
The DCLG note on the extra powers proposed in the Bill, is a fascinating document and it states that the debates during the passage of the Bill will constitute the principal initial scrutiny of the scheme, and I have to ask Ministers why that is the case. There could have been pre-legislative scrutiny, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said that it cried out for it. That would have been preferable to giving the Secretary of State powers to regulate, order and specify matters that would be better decided locally.
The Bill aims to allow communities a say on developments in their area through the planning system, but those measures are particularly poorly thought through. Indeed, the Royal Town Planning Institute says that work is needed on the Bill
“to remove those barriers in its drafting that deaden its effectiveness and hinder the ability of Government to achieve its own objectives”
and that
“the lack of a coherent strategic planning system combined with the complexity of the neighbourhood planning system”
that the Bill proposes will
“hinder…economic recovery…addressing climate change and enhancing the environment”.
On that last point, 17 organisations in the Wildlife and Countryside Link say that the Bill must:
“Introduce…strategic planning across local authority boundaries”.
They feel that the Bill risks creating a two-tier system in which
“only well-resourced neighbourhoods can take part”,
which echoes the comments that we have heard from many hon. Members.
The Government have made the wrong choices in their proposals on social housing and the rights of people who depend on it. On that and other proposals in the Bill, there has been scarce opportunity for scrutiny—indeed, a rushed consultation closed only today. Housing and homelessness charities have rightly criticised the desire of Lord Freud, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to weaken the rights of homeless families. The Bill proposes to strip them of the right to any say over the accommodation that they are offered.
Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends spoke about the fact that the Bill will mean that social tenants lose their right to social housing if their circumstances change. Families who play by the rules and improve their lot could be at risk of losing their homes. The Conservative party said in April that it had no policy to change the current or future security of tenure of tenants in social housing, but the Bill contains provisions to do that. The Government have a record of breaking their word—on VAT, on the education maintenance allowance and on tuition fees—and now council and housing association tenants will see whether the Government keep their word.
If the Secretary of State were a true champion of localism, he would have proposed real freedoms for councils, rather than give himself wide-ranging new powers to direct them. He would have produced a Bill that engaged local people in planning their neighbourhoods at the same time as promoting sustainable development and protecting the environment, and he would have fought for a fair and manageable financial settlement for local councils. Had he done so, councils could work on giving their residents a real say in how their local areas are run, rather than focus all their energy on making cuts.
My hon. Friends said that the Bill is the worst of all worlds, that it will set community empowerment back years, that true localism will not emerge without a fair settlement for local government, that the Bill gives rights but no resources to back them up, that it is a shambolic cover-up, that it is not fair and not progressive, and that it fools no one. I urge hon. Members with concerns about the Bill to join us in supporting the amendment tonight.