Oral Answers to Questions
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil O’Brien
My hon. Friend is completely correct. Some £19.4 million was allocated to projects in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton through round 1 of the levelling-up fund, in addition to the £21.1 million allocated to Crawley. I look forward to working with people in West Sussex to do more through round 2 of the levelling-up fund as well as the UK shared prosperity fund.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
We need to introduce the White Paper, which will be published in the spring, first. I look forward to discussing its terms with the hon. Lady so we can ensure that the legislation subsequently introduced is fit for purpose.
Local Government Finance (England)
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point, but it is vital not to pit urban against rural or Dorset against London. In the debate on the police grant report, he and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) drew attention to particular crime challenges that Dorset faces, with major cities such as Bournemouth in the broader Dorset area, issues of county lines and rurality, and pressure on public services overall. They were absolutely right to do so. We have sought to ensure that in the settlement we provide Dorset’s police and fire and rescue service with appropriate resource, but of course we keep things constantly under review.
For the benefit of the House, I will briefly run through the details of the funding settlement. Overall, the settlement funding assessment—in essence, what used to be the revenue support grant allocation—comes to some £14,882,000,000, a truly significant amount and a significant increase. In the local government finance settlement, we are also increasing our compensation to local authorities for under-indexing the business rates multiplier. We are making sure that local authorities have the opportunity to raise the council tax precept by 2% on the social care precept and that they benefit from an improved better care fund from the new homes bonus. The rural services delivery grant, which helps to address some of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) so ably raised, is being held at £85 million.
Perhaps the two most substantial changes are the increase in the social care grant, to take account of the particular pressures on local authorities as a result of the challenges that adult social care services face, and the additional £822 million that has been made available in a specific services grant. That money is unringfenced, and it is in keeping with the direction of our “Levelling Up” White Paper and of the Government overall in recognising that, wherever possible, those in local government are best equipped to meet local needs. That principle of devolution and local discretion will be in our mind as we consider how to reform local government finance further in future.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. He will know that Salford City Council has faced budget cuts of £232 million since 2010 and has stated that the approach to funding that he outlines does not adequately reflect the demand that it faces. Does he agree that true levelling up requires funding to meet actual demand, and that it requires differentials for poverty, inequality and council tax payers’ ability to pay to be effectively factored into Government grant methodology?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an important point. As we review future reforms to local government finance, I look forward to working with her and other colleagues to make sure that her point about deprivation, which affects a considerable number of her constituents, is reflected in our overall approach. It is important to say that the most relatively deprived areas of England—those in the upper decile of the index of multiple deprivation —will receive 14% more per dwelling in available resource through this year’s settlement than the least deprived areas. The settlement serves the cause of social justice with a redistribution towards poorer areas, but of course we keep these things under review.
Levelling Up
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to make sure that the additional funding available through the UK shared prosperity fund goes to all the communities in Wales that deserve it.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Secretary of State bursts with enthusiasm today, yet his plans are not bursting with much new funding. Even the director of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership says that
“the government is planning to spend less on English regional development than was the case under Theresa May or David Cameron.”
It said that true levelling up would need long-term financial backing from the Chancellor. When will we see that?
Building Safety Bill
Rebecca Long Bailey ExcerptsWednesday 19th January 2022
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Building Safety Act 2022 View all Building Safety Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 19 January 2022 - large print - (19 Jan 2022)
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is nearly five years since the tragic events at Grenfell Tower, yet thousands of my constituents in Salford and Eccles still live in fear. Some live in cold, draughty flats, having waited years for already removed cladding to be replaced, and for so many leaseholders every day, the bills for interim fire safety and increased insurance premiums rack up. They cannot move, they cannot sell, they struggle to get credit and the mental toll increasingly becomes unmanageable.
When the Secretary of State informed Parliament last week that he
“will pursue statutory protection for leaseholders and nothing will be off the table”—[Official Report, 10 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 285.]
it was welcome news, but we have been here before, have we not? All his predecessors have conveyed warm, fluffy, non-binding statements to the House about protecting leaseholders, but we have seen very little action. The Minister must understand why my constituents have asked me why we are not legislating to protect them today in the Bill. There have been no clear assurances from him today, sadly, that the amendments that will be tabled in the other place will comprehensively include all leaseholders and indemnify them against all fire safety defect costs and ancillary costs that they may have incurred over the past few years.
The absence of that protection raises many more unanswered questions, which I hope the Minister will address. For example, what about my residents who have already received financially devastating demands for payment? Will he confirm what they should do? Should they ignore those demands in the hope that the Government legislate? How will he protect them when they face forfeiture and losing their home, or worse, bankruptcy?
Furthermore, there is ambiguity once again about the non-cladding fire safety defects in the majority of the affected buildings in my constituency, so will he confirm what specific actions he will take to ensure that residents and leaseholders are protected from the costs of non-cladding fire safety defects in buildings of all heights?
What about the sums spent so far? I am informed that many sinking funds in my constituency have already been wiped out by virtue of fire safety investigations and other interim fire safety costs. In addition, residents have already been paying directly for interim costs and increased insurance premiums. Will they be able to claim a refund, and will that be legislated for in the other place?
Finally, I must highlight the significant and unacceptable delays both in the completion of the fire safety works themselves and in processing building safety fund applications. A number of housing association blocks in my constituency have been without cladding for some years now, leaving many residents living in freezing conditions, and numerous other private residential buildings are reporting significant delays at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in signing off funding agreements within the building safety fund.
If the Secretary of State cannot get the limited amount of money the Government have already committed out the door, how can he assure us that any wider package he announces will be more expedient in the future? What action are the Minister and the Secretary of State taking to fast-track, expand and train up new specialists in the supply chain to carry out the urgent work required at pace?
My constituents simply deserve two urgent things from the Government: first, to have their buildings made safe as part of an urgent national building safety mission; and, secondly, to be protected from the costs of a fire safety crisis they did not cause. Sadly, as drafted so far, this Bill delivers neither. I hope the Minister reflects on the amendments that will be required in the other place and delivers the safety and protection that my constituents deserve.
Building Safety Bill
Rebecca Long Bailey ExcerptsWednesday 21st July 2021
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Building Safety Act 2022 View all Building Safety Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
Sadly, this Bill is deficient in many areas. It focuses on higher-risk buildings, currently defined as those over 18 metres, leaving the safety of residents in buildings under 18 metres unclear. Does today’s EWS1 announcement now mean that combustible cladding under 18 metres should be ignored?
The issue of funding is still not adequately addressed. As the Government well know, the building safety fund only covers unsafe cladding, yet 70% of buildings surveyed have non-cladding fire and safety defects. Providing cladding remediation funding for buildings over 18 metres, yet forcing leaseholders in buildings under 18 metres to pay, is simply unjust. As Inside Housing has previously reported, even the minority of leaseholders who could apply for loans potentially face waiting for years.
As for social landlords, the National Housing Federation has stated that, “Social housing providers will be forced to draw money from improving tenants homes in communities to fund remediation.” This is staggering.
To address these inequities, the Government plan simply to extend limitation periods to 15 years, but that will still require leaseholders and social landlords to stump up the initial cost themselves, if they do not qualify for the building safety fund. Legal processes for the recovery of such funds could take years and be very costly, if the developers and contractors even still exist.
This proposal would not help leaseholders in my constituency at Transport House, who face bills of more than £100,000 each, as they fall shy of the 15-year period, and nor would it help the tenants and residents of Sovereign Point.
Aside from the unsafe conditions such residents are forced to live in every day, the mental strain takes its toll. In a survey by UK Cladding Action Group, 90% of leaseholders said their mental health has deteriorated and a fifth—a fifth—have had thoughts of suicide and self-harm.
Let us be clear: the only way to protect both leaseholders and tenants from the unfair costs of the crisis they did not cause is for the Government to provide upfront remediation funding, then recoup the cost from those responsible for those safety defects. As we have heard, they managed to do that in Australia, so this Government can manage to do it here.
Affordable and Safe Housing for All
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
Sadly, the Queen’s Speech demonstrated a failure to act on acute social housing shortages, while thousands languish on housing waiting lists. It failed adequately to protect renters as the evictions ban and furlough schemes come to an end, and it failed to act urgently on fire safety and to protect leaseholders and residents from the cost of a crisis they did not cause.
On social housing, the reality is that, over the last five years, less than 10% of the amount needed has been built, but the Government had absolutely nothing to say. They should have adopted calls from organisations such as Shelter, which has suggested an investment of at least £12.8 billion a year over 10 years, which would have delivered 90,000 social rented homes a year.
On private renters, of course the Government reaffirmed commitments to end section 21 no fault evictions, but we have been waiting for over two years for that. If the Government honour their promise, that still leaves a glaring lack of protection for all those tenants in pandemic arrears who can still legitimately be evicted. The Government should have set out a package of support for them.
Finally, on cladding and fire safety, we saw nothing: no support for the victims and no remediation deadlines, just the promise of a building safety regulator. Members across this House have repeatedly called on Government to protect leaseholders and residents from the cost of a crisis they did not cause. Absurdly, the Government told us that amendments that defined responsibility for the cost of remediating fire safety defects were too complex an issue to go in a Bill whose purpose was to deal with the responsibility for fire safety defects, and it seems they were also too complex to go in the Queen’s Speech. The Government know that the building safety fund only covers unsafe cladding, yet 70% of the buildings surveyed have non-cladding fire safety defects. They know that there is no support available at all for interim measures such as increased insurance premiums and waking watches. They know that providing cladding remediation funding for buildings over 18 metres yet forcing leaseholders in buildings under 18 metres to pay is simply unjust. The Government must honour their moral duty to these victims. They must provide up-front funding to remediate all residential buildings urgently and finally legislate to protect leaseholders and residents from the cost of the crisis they are not responsible for. It is not a complex issue; it is a moral issue, and the Government need to sort it out.
Fire Safety Bill
Rebecca Long Bailey ExcerptsTuesday 27th April 2021
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 View all Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 196-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons reason - (27 Apr 2021)
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I support holding the Lords amendment. I think it is the right thing to do at the moment, although not because it is perfect—it is far from perfect and not without its flaws. My problem is that I do not see the Government responding to the overwhelming concern about what is happening to leaseholders, many of whom, as has been said before, were first-time buyers.
We face, today, an issue of concern both personal and public. The public concern is that the devaluation of these homes is now so dramatic that it will cause an economic shock. I remember the old negative equity problem that erupted as a result of a collapse, and I do not want to see us back there again. I accept that, as has been said, the Government have already put £5.1 billion into the process, but it is worth at least another £10 billion in settlement, and that is going to fall on the shoulders of leaseholders.
Let me relate what is going on in my constituency. Like everybody else, I have a set of estates, including Queen Mary’s Gate and Blackberry Court, among other blocks in my constituency. Many of them are under 18 metres and have cladding—this is the point that has been raised—that was not compliant at the time of their building. The leaseholders did not know that—they bought their homes with a sense that they were buying something that was right and reasonable—and are now not eligible for the safety fund.
What has happened because of all this? We have tried to get hold of the developer, Telford Homes, but it has not engaged for more than a year now. Telford Homes does not answer anything or engage about what it might do; it has gone to ground. That is the problem that lies at the heart of all this right now: there is no way that the leaseholders can get redress because they cannot go to those who did this wrongly at the time and the Government have not brought forward any mechanism to allow leaseholders to get after these individuals, who will sit there and wait for the leaseholders to waste their money.
The Lords amendment is not perfect, but I am trying to articulate a cry for help from my constituents and others around the country. I agree with and support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). Let us find a way to make sure that those who were responsible stand up and pay the bill. They have made a lot of money in the past, legitimately, on building homes; those who did not put up the right cladding should automatically be in the frame. Meanwhile, the costs spiral and my constituents will pay them.
Today, for the first time, I shall vote to maintain and hold the Lords amendment. I say to the Government that if they do not want it, they had better get to the Lords and get us something decent that allows us to give support to our leaseholder constituents, because that would be doing the right thing.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
I speak in favour of the Bishop of St Albans’ amendment. As the UK Cladding Action Group has previously reported, there have already been leaseholder suicides and, worryingly, 23% of those surveyed by the group have considered suicide or self-harm.
The Government must realise that the building safety fund only covers unsafe cladding, yet 70% of the buildings surveyed have non-cladding fire safety defects. They must understand that providing cladding remediation funding for buildings over 18 metres, yet forcing leaseholders in buildings under 18 metres to pay, is entirely unfair. They must recognise that there is no support available at all for interim measure costs, including increased insurance premiums and waking watches, which often run into figures of more than £15,000 per week.
To add further devastation, as we have heard today, Inside Housing has reported that even the minority of leaseholders who could apply for loans face a wait of potentially years. In the meantime, many residents still live in unsafe buildings and are understood to have already received requests for up-front payment, with freeholders sometimes instructing solicitors to carry out debt recovery. This could result in a tide of bankruptcies and evictions. The situation is so bad that I understand that analysts at the Bank of England are now assessing whether Britain’s building safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis.
It is clear that the Government’s approach is untenable and it must change today. Even the National Housing Federation states that the only way to prevent leaseholders and social landlords from having to pay to remediate buildings they did not construct is for the Government to provide up-front funding to remediate all buildings. I hope all MPs today can recognise the moral duty they personally have to protect our constituents and will vote in favour of the Lords amendment.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
I had very much hoped that it would not be necessary for us to continue to have this debate in relation to this Bill. The core elements of the Bill are worth while and I support them. Unfortunately, however, it creates a set of potential liabilities upon wholly innocent leaseholders, without giving them an adequate means of redress. That is simply unfair. It is unfair on my constituents and it is unfair on people who have bought properties in good faith and who have relied on professional advice and the regulatory regime that was then in force. If there are people who were at fault, either in the construction of the buildings or in the way in which surveys were carried out, they should absolutely be held to account, but the people who should not end up with a liability are the leaseholders, who have acted in good faith throughout. It is the absence of protection for them that, regrettably, causes me to have to support the Lords amendment again today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) tabled what I thought were constructive amendments, which I was happy to sign. I hope—still; even at this late stage—that the Government will see that there is a basis for progress to be made. As things stand, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) noted, we have to continue to press the case on the Government. I hope that, if the House rejects the amendments—I hope it will vote for the Lords amendments and deal with the matter—it will give the Government yet a further chance to resolve this matter.
At the end of the day, we are not asking that the taxpayer pick up the burden. We are asking that the leaseholders should be relieved, certainly in the short term, of the pressures that fall upon them and that they are unable to deal with. The Government are in a position to fund the cash flow that leaseholders cannot fund and which is driving them to desperate situations. It is absolutely right that they should then seek to recoup those funds from those who are responsible and who have been at fault. There is nothing in the Lords amendment or the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset that would prevent that from happening. I urge the Government to think again and recognise that, although the core elements of the Bill are good, collaterally, it does real injustice to innocent leaseholders, such as many in my constituency and elsewhere. For heaven’s sake, can we not find a constructive way forward to achieve the objectives of the Bill and protect innocent leaseholders? Those things should not be mutually incompatible, but at the moment we have not yet found a solution.
Covid-19: Hospitality Industry
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
Pre covid, the number of people who worked in Greater Manchester’s night-time economy alone stood at 414,000, which is 33% of Greater Manchester’s workforce, but as the rest of the country emerged from the first lockdown last year Greater Manchester was quickly propelled back into restrictions, with limited financial support. Half of businesses now do not expect to break even until the end of 2021. The insolvency risk has grown month on month in the sector and is now at its highest point since at least April 2020. UKHospitality predicts that a failure to act now to solve the rent crisis could trigger thousands of hospitality businesses to fail across the UK.
So what must the Government do? There are a few urgent steps they could take today. First, they could ensure that the millions still excluded from Government support receive financial support equivalent to the self-employment income support scheme and that this support is backdated. Secondly, they could provide Government-backed insurance and event cancellation insurance to give businesses and events full confidence to reopen and plan for the future when restrictions lift. Thirdly, they could provide an urgent and significant sector support package for hospitality, events and tourism, including a Government-backed solution to spiralling rent and commercial debt arrears, and revisit the business rates cap, which unfairly penalises large numbers of hospitality businesses, which will find themselves paying full rates just days after restrictions are fully lifted in June.
Fourthly, the Government could protect local brewers and micro-pubs by stopping the tax hike in proposed changes to the small brewers relief and review beer duty. Lastly, they could protect workers by ensuring that the furlough scheme can run for as long as it is needed; increasing statutory sick pay to a level that people can actually live on; and setting up a hospitality commission to identify a sector recovery plan as well as investigate unscrupulous and exploitative practices where they are found in the industry, such as fire and rehire and the denigration of employment terms.
All we ask for in Greater Manchester is the ability to protect jobs and income while we keep people safe and get back on our feet. So if the Government want to back their levelling-up rhetoric with real action, they will provide the economic support our workers and businesses need.
Coronavirus: Supporting Businesses and Individuals
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
At least 3 million people have been excluded from covid support schemes. One constituent of mine ran a tourism business from home. She has no rateable business premises to qualify for grant funding, she cannot afford to repay business support loans, and the minimal furlough she receives does not even cover her rent. Her situation is desperate. Another constituent works as a freelance interior designer for the hospitality sector. He has received only 20% of his usual monthly income, and he says:
“I honestly don’t know how I can carry on for much longer”.
A personal trainer saving to set up her own studio found that she was ineligible for support schemes and, because of her savings, also ineligible for universal credit.
There are hundreds of stories like these in Salford. Many people may now lose their homes, and the impact on their mental health and that of their families is profound. Indeed, recently the mental health spokesperson for ExcludedUK said that the group has had 13 suicides to date and noted widespread mental anguish. Of one case, the spokesperson said:
“I had one woman who posted on our Facebook group asking for someone to come and collect her dogs because she couldn’t afford to feed them anymore. She herself had been eating dog food because that was the only thing she had left in her house”.
The Chancellor must do the right thing. He must provide an immediate emergency grant for those affected. He must install new monthly arrangements while restrictions remain in place, in complete parity with the extension of the CJRS and SEISS schemes, and remove hard edges to eligibility criteria. Finally, he must backdate payments for a full and final settlement to deliver parity and fairness for those excluded from meaningful support. If the Chancellor refuses to heed these proposals today not only will his promise to leave no one behind be worthless, but he will be responsible for the most glaring and deliberate orchestration of social injustice we have seen during this pandemic.
Local Government Finance (England)
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
I certainly echo the thanks that have been given to our amazing public sector workforce during the pandemic. In Salford they have been nothing short of outstanding.
The charity StepChange has found that the number of people who are in severe problem debt because of the covid crisis has risen to 1.2 million—the figure has nearly doubled since March—with a further 3 million at risk. It warns that we are facing a new and unprecedented debt crisis unless the Government implement a clear, preventive plan to tackle it.
Worse still, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated at the time of the 2020 spending review that the number of unemployed people would hit 2.26 million by the middle of this year. Three million people have been completely excluded from any coronavirus income support, leaving them in dire financial situations. Along with proposed cuts to universal credit, this will contribute to one of the worst recessions in our economic history. I say to the Secretary of State that in effect forcing people to pay more in council tax at this time, instead of increasing the overall level of funding for local authorities, is not just morally reprehensible; it makes no economic sense, and it will not pave the way to recovery, as he says it will.
Already Salford has experienced a council tax collection deficit of £9.1 million this year, which is creating financial pressures for future budgets. The fact is that people simply do not have enough money to pay for it. There is also a £19.3 million budget deficit in business rate revenue due to covid-related business rate relief and a forecast reduction in rateable values. With covid alone, we have seen our budgets hammered, but the big financial damage was, sadly, inflicted by Government cuts long before covid hit.
Of course, the Government will wax lyrical about how they have provided more money to local government and ring-fenced pots of money for social care and covid, but that is strictly not true. At least 12 authorities that are in or around a section 114 position—the equivalent of bankruptcy for local authorities—are in talks with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Indeed, Richard Watts, the chair of the resources board of the Local Government Association, said on Monday that
“councils had seen a £15bn cumulative cut in their Whitehall grants since 2010.”
Also since 2010, £211 million has been taken out of Salford’s revenue budget—that is 53% of core funding from central Government being taken away from the city of Salford.
Despite all that, and in the face of such adversity, we have one of the most forward-thinking and progressive councils in the UK. The council has stretched every sinew and dipped into its reserves to set out a no-cuts budget this year. But that is just to break even. As the UK’s 18th most deprived authority, and with Salford seeing cuts 35% worse than the national average, forced increases in council tax and no commitment from the Government to increase the overall level of funding that we receive, the future is not just uncertain but unsustainable. This is not the levelling up that we were promised; it is levelling down.
Let me be clear to the Secretary of State: his proposals are not some grand Government efficiency project to streamline our public services and provide us with local revenue-generating powers; they will exacerbate regional inequality, cause further financial misery for people across Salford and steal from their future. His proposals steal the right to decent services, steal the right to a vibrant local economy and steal the right to decent social care. What we need from the Secretary of State today is Government funding, not austerity by stealth.