31 Oct 2011 : Column 583
31 Oct 2011 : Column 583
House of Commons
Monday 31 October 2011
The House met at half-past Two o’clock
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Communities and Local Government
The Secretary of State was asked—
Fire and Rescue Services
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): Driving down the nation’s deficit remains the Government’s principal priority, but we have protected fire and rescue services in the spending review by back-loading their reductions to 2013-14 and 2014-15. As a consequence, the revenue spending power of single-purpose fire and rescue authorities will be reduced by only 2.2% in 2011-12 and by 0.5% in 2012-13.
Mr Anderson: The local chief fire officer in Tyne and Wear advises me that although the average loss across the country is 6.5%, in the metropolitan areas it is 12.9%. He believes that if the cuts go ahead they will lead to a weakening of national and local resilience, firefighters made compulsorily redundant, a further reduction in the number of rescuers, a significant fall in the number of readily available appliances and fire station closures. What will the Minister do to ensure that that prophesy does not come true?
Robert Neill: All local fire and rescue authorities must perform their statutory duties under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 and act in a way that is consistent with their integrated risk management plans. The Government adjusted the fire formula following consultation with local fire and rescue authorities and increased the weighting given to the needs element and risk factors in urban areas.
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con):
Will my hon. Friend confirm that at least £630 million will be wasted by the Labour Government’s commitment to regional control centres and that in the south-east the taxpayer is likely to be paying £1.5 million a year in rent over the next 20
31 Oct 2011 : Column 584
years for a control centre in Farnham that nobody needs? All that money could be better spent on the fire service today.
Robert Neill: My hon. Friend is right to point out the exceptionally strong condemnation by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee of the previous Administration’s project. We have done our best to minimise the damage to the taxpayer by terminating the contract and thereby ending the haemorrhage of money. We have also reduced the maintenance costs of the remaining stations and are seeking end uses for them. We are making progress in finding an appropriate use for them, to get them off the public books as swiftly as we can.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab): Fire services in Hampshire, Essex, Dorset, Devon and Somerset are receiving an increase in the Government grant over the next two years. South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, the west midlands, Merseyside and Greater Manchester all face cuts of more than 12%. Why?
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab): The Minister should stop being so complacent about these terrible cuts to the fire service. He has been warned by the country’s metropolitan chief fire officers that if his cuts proceed lives will be endangered and our ability to respond to acts of terrorism and other major incidents will be compromised. Will he listen to their warnings and scrap his plans for even deeper cuts to the fire and rescue service in years three and four of the budget cycle?
Robert Neill: I was about to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on retaining his post in the reshuffle; I might rethink that, because I am afraid it is the same old story and he is plain wrong. The Government have made it clear that we are protecting the fire service as a front-line service. We have back-loaded services and indicated to county councils with fire authorities that they should maintain the same profile. We have also made available £70 million of capital grant to improve their future adjustments and made it clear that we will protect all front-line operations.
Surplus Public Land/Offices
Mr Amess: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend envisages all that surplus land being released, but will he please explain how the finances will flow to provide those houses and say something about social mobility and housing?
31 Oct 2011 : Column 585
Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is one thing to release brownfield land; it is another to get it built on. That is why we introduced the innovative build now, pay later regime, which will get homes on those sites quickly, with developers paying for them only when the receipts start to come in. That will do a great deal for social mobility, as will the home swap direct scheme, which was launched last week, and which I noted the Opposition criticised.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): The Minister will probably guess that I was against the abolition of regional development agencies. Some of us are worried about the arrangements that were made to enable staff to start social enterprises, with generous endowments from the RDA, who then go into competition with existing players in the third sector.
Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman need not be too concerned. We believe that the best way of getting homes built—and the most built—is proper free competition between different providers, different developers and different organisations, which would range from co-ops to registered social landlords and commercial developers. We see no problem with that, and we have gained some sense that it is working. After all, more affordable homes for rent were built in the first year of this Government than at any time since John Major was in power.
3. John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab): What the monetary value was of (a) council tax relief for second homeowners and (b) discounts on council tax for empty properties in England in the latest period for which figures are available. 
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles): The Department keeps no figures for Scotland, but for 2011-12 the estimated monetary value of council tax relief for second home owners in England is £45 million, and for discounts on council tax for long-term empty properties in England it is £70 million. The hon. Gentleman might wish to refer to the written ministerial statement on technical reforms to council tax that I have laid before the House today.
John Robertson: I thank the Minister for his response. What would he say to those who think his new policy, as in his statement, is a penalty surcharge? Does he agree that they are wrong and misguided?
Mr Pickles: I should point out to the Labour Whips that the hon. Gentleman’s question was not planted to coincide with today’s announcement. The Labour Government reduced the second homes discount to 10%. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman welcomed what we are doing rather than condemn it. Perhaps he is of a mind that because the Tories are doing it, it must be wrong.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD):
Second home and holiday home ownership in some Cornish parishes is as much as 80% of the overall housing stock. As part of the Government’s localism agenda, will my
31 Oct 2011 : Column 586
right hon. Friend consider giving local authorities the power to limit the number of second and holiday homes in an area?
Mr Pickles: I think that would be rather difficult and open to abuse. This is an important step for my hon. Friend’s constituents and it should enable council tax bills to be cut by an average of about £20.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps): We estimate that there are about 6,000 households in social housing where the person named on the tenancy agreement and their partner have a combined income over £100,000 a year—something we intend to tackle through the pay to stay scheme, whereby those on six-figure incomes who wish to stay in their properties can pay to stay there.
Mr Burley: The 2,345 people currently on the housing waiting list in Cannock Chase will be gobsmacked to learn that an estimated 6,000 people still living in council houses are paying a subsidised rent despite earning more than £100,000 a year—four times the average salary of my constituents. With so many people in need of housing languishing on waiting lists, what assurances can the Minister give me and my constituents that those people who earn more than him will be forced to pay their way like the rest of us?
Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend points out a real problem with the housing system—that it is possible to earn a six-figure salary, sit on the Labour Benches and still occupy a home built for some of the most vulnerable people in society, who deserve those homes. We will allow the pay to stay scheme to go ahead, meaning that people can stay in their homes and pay the market rent so that we can use all the money to build more affordable homes for people who really need them.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab): If the Government are so keen on restricting social housing to those on low incomes, how does the Minister explain the affordable rent regime? Is it not the case that in local authorities such as my own, even at 65% of market rents, the income required—without benefit—to pay for an affordable family-sized house is £77,000 a year?
Grant Shapps: We are keen to protect people on low incomes, not on high ones, as the hon. Lady suggested. The point about the housing benefit changes is that many of her constituents, along with mine and everyone else’s, will be asking how it can be fair for people in receipt of housing benefit to live in homes and streets that people on ordinary salaries cannot possibly afford to live in. That is the system that we are going to fix; when the Opposition were in government, they used to support that policy.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 587
Grant Shapps: I can provide a little more information. We expect some tens of millions of pounds to be raised by pay to stay. Those with six-figure incomes will pay a market rent to stay in their homes, and we will use every single penny of the money to build the more affordable housing that the most vulnerable people in society deserve and need.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles): Council tax in England more than doubled under the previous Administration, and shire counties were hit particularly hard. Under that formula, Worcestershire saw an average rise close to 140%.
Harriett Baldwin: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to record his thanks to staff and councillors at Malvern Hills and Wychavon district councils, which have managed to make enough back-office savings to enable them to freeze council tax following those shocking increases?
Mr Pickles: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in thanking those two councils for prioritising their expenditure, for working together, and for protecting front-line services. After all, that is what local government should do, and it is what local government is particularly good at.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab): The Secretary of State has earmarked funds for councils for this year and next year to encourage them to freeze council tax. Given the importance to councils of planning, is the Secretary of State thinking about what will happen in the following year? Is he likely to continue his present policy? Does he accept that if he withdraws the grant he will not have frozen council tax, but will merely have deferred two years’ increases and produced the possibility of very large increases in the following year?
Mr Pickles: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not accept that for a moment. The arrangements for council tax in the current year will continue next year and the year after, throughout the spending period. On top of that, there is a one-off payment to councils to help them to reduce their expenditure. That seems eminently sensible to me. After that, the people will decide; it will not be up to me. The hon. Gentleman scoffs at referendums. The hon. Gentleman does not like talking about democracy. The hon. Gentleman seems not to think that the population are up to making such important decisions, but we do.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 588
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles): My Department has been championing a series of measures to promote local economic growth. For example, our proposals for the local retention of business rates will reward councils for working with business, and will provide new incentives to drive growth. The 22 enterprise zones will generate new businesses and jobs in a targeted way across the country, from Newcastle to Newquay.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con): I thank the Secretary of State for his leadership in developing the enterprise zone at Warton. What steps is his Department taking to drive it and similar enterprise zones forward, and to create jobs for the people of Lancashire?
Mr Pickles: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind remarks. I do not want us to become a mutual admiration society, but although my hon. Friend was initially unsuccessful in securing enterprise zones, he continued to lobby, made a very good case for them, and managed to form a coalition of the willing in industry that Opposition Members would do well to emulate. Following the announcement on 3 October, when the Chancellor invited the Lancashire and Humber local enterprise partnerships to put together a scheme, my officials worked with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lancashire councils to produce something of which the people of Lancashire will be very proud.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con): My question also concerns job creation. When I met the chief executive of my local council recently, we talked about what more could be done to support encourage local entrepreneurs. Will the Secretary of State do all he can to encourage all councils to display a “can do” rather than a “can’t do” attitude when approached by budding entrepreneurs?
Mr Pickles: My hon. Friend’s council has long had a reputation as a can-do council, and it is one of the best for keeping down the council tax and keeping satisfaction high among its residents. Given that quite a lot of the important developments in west London lie within her patch, we are looking to her and to the council to expedite badly needed growth.
Businesses in Oxford West and Abingdon tell me how important it is that they access local government procurement contracts, and about the difficulties they have in navigating some of the complicated procurement processes. The Government have taken some steps to support local businesses to access central
31 Oct 2011 : Column 589
Government procurement processes, but how can the Secretary of State’s Department help to open up local government procurement processes in the same way?
Mr Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Indeed, we have been working very closely with the Local Government Association to try to free up procurement. Part of that, of course, has been ensuring that there is transparency so that we can see how councils are spending their money. I am particularly grateful to the LGA, with which we are trying to demystify the complexities of European procurement regulations to allow local businesses to bid.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab): The Secretary of State will surely acknowledge that in cutting two thirds of the funds available to the regions of England when the regional development agencies were abolished, the Government struck a blow at the very innovation, growth and enterprise that he has been praising this afternoon. Is it not strange and revealing that it has been announced today that Sheffield Forgemasters will be given a third of the loan that was originally sought? Is that not an admission by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary and the Business Secretary that they got it totally wrong last year?
Mr Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely wrong. The regional development agencies cannot be described as a success by any stretch of the imagination. The north lost out in economic growth compared with the south under Labour, and gross value added per head as a percentage of the total UK level fell across the north from 1997 to 2009 but rose in London. The north lost out in private sector jobs created under Labour—for every private sector job generated in the north and midlands, 10 were generated in London.
Mr Pickles: It came very close, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will work with the local councils, because it is possible to have a local development order in the area. It is certainly possible to do a deal on broadband, and once the Localism Bill is in force it will be possible to do a deal with regard to local taxation.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab): How can the Secretary of State claim to be promoting local enterprise when the Government have kicked away its support? They abolished RDAs, against the advice of local business; he has paralysed the planning system; and his proposals for business rates mean that local authorities would be better off building big retail parks than supporting manufacturing and small business. As we now know that for every two jobs lost in the public sector fewer than one is being created in the private sector, why does he not admit that this out-of-date, ideologically driven policy is not working?
31 Oct 2011 : Column 590
The Labour party simply has to stop clinging to the comfort blanket of the idea that it somehow left a golden economic legacy. It did not. It is impossible for Labour to defend local government and at the same time say that all it would do is put up sheds for Spudulike and Carphone Warehouse. Local authorities are responsible, and they will use the new initiative to work together and bring about growth, unlike the regional development agencies, which by and large were not a good thing.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark): The draft national planning policy framework contains strong protections to safeguard high-value agricultural land and recognises the importance of food production. We are now carefully considering the responses to the consultation.
Elizabeth Truss: Food and farming are vital to tourism and exports in Norfolk, and its produce is very high quality, as the Secretary of State found out when he visited the Norfolk food festival in Parliament earlier this month. Does the Minister agree that the planning framework should take into account the long-term value of agriculture, as once farmland is lost it is very hard to get back?
Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—and when I was talking to the Secretary of State earlier, he extolled the virtues of the pies available at the Norfolk food festival. We must take into account the long-term value of food security as well as the short and medium-term economic benefits of food production.
Local Government Finance
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps): First, let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his great work in the Westminster Sustainable Business Forum. Public sector assets are worth about £385 billion, almost two thirds of which are owned by councils.
Matthew Hancock: I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. Is he looking forward to sending his boss along to next week’s launch of the second leg of the review of how much can be saved by reforming the way property is used by local public sector agencies and local authorities, which will highlight that this is about not just bricks and mortar but increasing productivity and spending money more wisely?
I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will enjoy that visit enormously, especially if good food is on offer. My hon. Friend is on to something here: public sector assets are worth £385 billion, and two thirds of them are council-owned. If a saving of just 20% in running costs were
31 Oct 2011 : Column 591
made, that could save about £35 billion a year in receipts over 10 years. There is an enormous amount of money to be saved, therefore, and I commend the work that has been done.[Official Report, 21 November 2011, Vol. 536, c. 2MC.]
National Planning Policy Framework
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark): I have received several representations from environmental organisations on the draft national planning policy framework, and we are now considering our response to them.
Kerry McCarthy: That was a short, and not particularly sweet, reply. As I am sure the Minister knows, the wildlife trusts are calling for local wildlife sites and nature improvement areas to be included in the national planning framework, in order to protect wildlife against developers and to give councils more strategic guidance on improving local ecological networks. Will the Minister explain why such locations are not included in the framework?
Greg Clark: I have been having some very constructive discussions with the wildlife trusts, in which they have made precisely that point. The hon. Lady will understand that I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the consultation, but I can say that we have heard their perfectly reasonable representations and have listened very carefully.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): There has been considerable outcry about the presumption in favour of development in the new framework, but is it not correct that there has been such a presumption in our planning framework for the past 40 years?
Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right, but the presumption in the draft framework is in favour of sustainable development and it is very important that development that would damage the future environment and social aspects of our towns, cities and countryside does not go ahead.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): As the Minister will be aware, many environmental organisations, ranging from the Campaign to Protect Rural England to English Heritage and to the National Trust—which might be better known to the Minister as left-wing nihilists—have raised a storm of protest about the Government’s planning proposals. Are their fears about the future protection of the environment likely to be allayed by the revelation that Treasury officials were much more involved in writing the national policy framework than were environmental planners?
First, may I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box? It is good to have her serving on the Opposition Front-Bench team, as she has a long-standing interest in environmental and social matters. I am happy to correct the report to which she refers, however, which I think was based on a series of written parliamentary answers. I can assure her that a wide range of officials
31 Oct 2011 : Column 592
from many Departments participated, including from my Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That report was therefore incorrect.
Affordable Rent Scheme
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell): We received offers from 197 providers for the affordable homes programme by the deadline of 3 May. On 14 July, we announced that, subject to contracts, 146 providers will deliver 80,000 new homes for affordable rent and affordable home ownership, with Government funding of just under £1.8 billion.
Andrew Stunell: I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to know that 15 of the 146 bids were for the Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Vale area. Ten of the bids were accepted, and nine have been signed up with the Homes and Communities Agency. Overall, the Government are committed to investing nearly £4.5 billion in new affordable housing, delivering 170,000 new affordable homes compared with the 150,000 originally estimated. That means we shall be increasing the supply during this Parliament rather than reducing it, as the previous Government did.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): Will the Minister tell us how much money is being provided to local authorities to develop new council homes? Why are his Government insisting that any self-funded local development be provided by increasing council rents to 80% of market value, which makes those rents totally unaffordable in many urban parts of this country?
Andrew Stunell: I want to set the hon. Gentleman straight, because the ratio of the rent packages under the affordable rent offer in London is averaging 65% of market rents across London. Of course, tenants of those homes are eligible for housing benefit, as required.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps): This Government are, of course, committed, first, to ensuring that interest rates remain low for as long as possible, so we have been tackling the deficit to help first-time buyers. In addition, we are helping 10,500 first-time buyers through our FirstBuy scheme and 100,000 new right-to-buy tenants currently in council houses will own their own homes.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 593
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): My right hon. Friend will be aware of the gap between deposit aspiration and deposit actuation for first-time buyers in Banbury and Bicester. Will he update the House on how the FirstBuy scheme will support young first-time buyer families in my constituency?
Grant Shapps: People are having to save such large deposits for their homes and we are keen to do something about that, so the FirstBuy scheme ensures that they need to save only 10% rather than the current average of 20%. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that 169 homes are available in his constituency under the scheme.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): At a time when the Scottish Widows research shows that the average age of first-time unassisted buyers is set to rise to 44, is the Minister at all concerned that he might be just a little too complacent in his response?
Grant Shapps: First, just to correct the figures, we think that the current average age is about 37. There was a report suggesting that over the next 20, 30 or 40 years the figure might increase unless action is taken. We are absolutely focused on taking that action, which is why, as we have discussed, 100,000 homes are being sold through the right-to-buy scheme, with 100,000 affordable homes being built. This afternoon, we have discussed the 100,000 homes on Government land and, of course, the 170,000 homes through the new affordable homes programme, which the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) mentioned. Yes, we are confident; we are doing many of the things that never happened under the previous Administration.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): Because the Government have mismanaged the economy, consumer confidence, house prices and house building are falling, and we have a mortgage market in which people cannot get mortgages. Were it not for the 60,000 homes that were commissioned and paid for by a Labour Government but built in the past 12 months—Labour’s legacy—the house building industry would have been on its knees. Will the Housing Minister now back Labour’s call to repeat the bankers’ bonus tax in order to build 25,000 homes and create tens of thousands of jobs and apprenticeships? Will he also work with lenders and the house building industry to introduce a mortgage scheme that will offer hope to those who wish to buy their own home that they will be able to realise their dream?
Grant Shapps: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. He will be the eighth housing spokesman or deputy on the Labour side whom I have faced either in government or in opposition. I hope that he stays there longer than the previous incumbents. I think the main questions are about the new homes bonus, the HomeSwap Direct scheme, the opposition to £100,000-salaried tenants in council homes and whether the gap in policy and the constant switching of Ministers are going to come to an end, because without that the Opposition have nothing to say about housing policy at all. We are starting to get homes built in this country for the first time in years.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 594
National Planning Policy Framework
15. Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): What assessment he has made of the legal opinion obtained by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England in relation to the green belt and the national planning policy framework. 
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): The Government have clearly stated their determination to maintain strong protections for the green belt. Of course, by abolishing regional strategies we are removing the threat to the green belt in more than 30 separate locations across the country. We have received a large number of representations in relation to the NPPF and we will give all of them, from all sources, appropriate and careful consideration.
“Green Belt policy would be undermined by the sustainable development presumption together with the expectation that applications should be approved unless there are adverse impacts to policies in the NPPF as a whole.”
Robert Neill: I have to say that one comes across a lot of legal opinions—I have done so myself in a previous life—and I have every respect for the author of that opinion, but we will consider it along with all the other submissions we consider in relation to the NPPF.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): Perhaps the difficulty is that the countryside is not defined and neither are green spaces or green areas. Could we perhaps refer to “appropriate” rather than “sustainable” development?
Robert Neill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution. Obviously, we will consider any constructive suggestions, as we have made clear. It is worth bearing in mind that the presumption enhances a plan-led approach. Indeed, the significance of up-to-date plans is strengthened under our proposal, which I note that another eminent QC described in the planning encyclopaedia as an “excellent piece of work”.
Landlord Accreditation Schemes
16. Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): What steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to develop landlord accreditation schemes for the private rented sector; and if he will make a statement. 
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell): Good accreditation schemes can play an important role in developing a local authority’s relationship with its local landlords. Experience shows that accreditation works much better when it reflects local circumstances at local government level.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 595
Simon Hughes: Given that it is only seven weeks until the official beginning of winter and that one of the great failures of the private sector for tenants is that it often provides badly insulated homes, what can the Government do to make sure not only that tenants stay warm but that they do not have ridiculously high fuel bills?
Andrew Stunell: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Both fuel poverty and carbon emissions are major targets of the Government’s policy. That is why we are introducing the green deal next year, which is available to landlords for the private rented sector, and that is also why we have the energy company obligation. My right hon. Friend will know that the Energy Act 2011 provides the opportunity to introduce minimum standards in the private rented sector from 2018 if we need to go further.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab): Is the Minister aware of the growing trend whereby the produce of drugs sales is used to fund the private rented sector and as a means of laundering the money involved? If so, what is he going to do about it.
Andrew Stunell: Clearly, if the right hon. Gentleman has evidence of that, I am sure that he will pass it to the proper authorities so that action can be taken. I am well aware that such matters will be vigorously investigated by the police and, if necessary, the Revenue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell): The private rented sector has already responded flexibly to housing need over the past few years. By 2010 it had expanded to house some 3.4 million households in England, an increase of 1 million since 2005.
Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for his response and apologise for any delay, which was caused by my train. In view of his response, what assessment and modelling has his Department undertaken on the impact of the change to the thirtieth percentile for housing allowance and the extension of the single-room rent to those under 35 years of age? Many private landlords are extremely concerned about the impact on their viability.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 596
of the number of residents projected to be affected by the changes that have been brought forward and has presented to the House the facts of the situation.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): If we accept that, as the Minister suggests, we will be more dependent on the private rented sector, what action will he take to deal with the very high rents and very low standards in much of the sector?
Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that satisfaction surveys have shown that 70% of tenants in the private rented sector say that they are fairly satisfied or very satisfied, which contrasts with 69%—slightly lower—in the social rented sector, so we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions about that. It is of course important that accommodation is of a high standard, which is why many local authorities have developed accreditation schemes, and in some cases licensing schemes, to deal with the problem.
Green Belt Land
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark): The draft national planning policy framework is unequivocal in continuing the protection of the green belt. By abolishing the previous Government’s regional spatial strategies, we are removing the top-down pressure on councils to take away the green belt in 30 areas across England.
Karen Lumley: My constituents in Hanbury, a small village near Redditch, are facing a proposed development of over 400 homes, which would considerably change the nature of the village. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that their rights will be protected under the framework and that due consideration will be given to their concerns?
Greg Clark: My hon. Friend knows that I cannot comment on the particular situation to which she refers, but she should be reassured about the new powers set out in the framework. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), quoted from the legal bible on planning, the planning encyclopaedia. It states, “The most impressive of the sections in the NPPF is that on the green belt.” As a précis of PPG, it states that, “it could not be bettered, in particular in respect to inappropriate development. It would certainly be inconsistent with the policies herein contained for there to be any significant encroachment of built development on the green belt.”
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles):
The Localism Bill includes five provisions aimed at strengthening local planning authorities’ powers to tackle unauthorised development.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 597
These include restrictions on the use of retrospective planning applications when an enforcement notice has been served and the ability of councils to take action against unauthorised development that has been concealed deliberately.
Mr Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point. The Traveller community has managed to live side by side with the settled community for many years, but recent changes in planning law and recent reliance on human rights have created a number of difficulties. We will be issuing some revised guidance very soon, which will complement the Localism Bill.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles): Last week I spoke at the conference on supporting local communities after August’s disgraceful riots. Money is already reaching local firms, but at the request of councils we are extending the deadline for the high street support scheme until after Christmas in order to ensure that even more firms can be helped.
I have a meeting with Louise Casey, who is leading a new troubled families unit in my Department. Such families cost the economy more than £8 billion, and they have been failed by up to 20 overlapping agencies.
“A gentle and modest man, he earned the respect and admiration from politicians of all political colours and from the communities he served so diligently.”
Sarah Newton: Repatriating council houses, as well as their rents, will be positively welcomed by tenants and enable Cornwall to build much-needed new council housing, so will the Secretary of State assure me that plans to change the self-financing of council housing are on track to be delivered in April next year?
Mr Pickles: I know my hon. Friend has a considerable interest in council housing and has been a substantial champion of it. Yes, indeed, that reform is part of the coalition agreement, and, although it has taken some while to negotiate, once it is delivered we will be able to distribute debt throughout the country and place authorities in a much better and stronger position. I know that it enjoys support across the House.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 598
As a direct result of a decision taken by the Secretary of State, the most deprived 10% of single-tier councils will see their spending power reduced by almost four times as much as the least deprived 10%. So far, he has failed to justify that choice of his. Will he now explain to the House why he thinks that it is fair?
The answer is very straightforward. The previous Government made a number of decisions to attack the most deprived areas by removing measures such as the working neighbourhoods fund. They left no provision, so it was up to us to put in some provision to help the most needy. In addition, we have ensured that under those schemes the most needy authorities receive more than the least needy authorities.
In the Secretary of State’s speech to the Conservative party conference this year, he promised new safeguards for playing fields. In fact, he is scrapping Labour’s planning policy guidance in a way that
“significantly weakens the current protection on sports facilities”—
Mr Pickles: I know the right hon. Gentleman is new to the job, but he is very distinguished and should at least have done his homework. He knows perfectly well that that is certainly not the case. We are having very constructive discussions with Sport England about planning policy, and those protections will be there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell): I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We now have some 700,000 empty homes, of which over 300,000 have been empty for more than six months, and it remains a key priority of this Government to bring them back into use so that some of the 1.7 million families on council house waiting lists and the many more who would like to purchase their homes can do so.
T3.  Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State confirm the really startling figures from the first quarter of the operation of the new homes bonus, which show that new home starts went down by 18% compared with the same period last year, and that residential planning permissions went down by 23% compared with that same period? If he can confirm that those figures are correct, will he tell us what plans he has to revise the mechanisms of the new homes bonus?
31 Oct 2011 : Column 599
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps): Every question from the Opposition seems to involve an attack on the new homes bonus, which will pay the same amount as last year—nearly £200 million—for new homes started, in addition to another sum which may well be similar again, and in addition to an additional £20-plus million for the affordable housing element of the new homes bonus. The House needs to understand whether or not the Opposition support a bonus being paid when new homes are built.
T6.  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con): Does the Minister agree that the key to opening up public sector procurement opportunities for small and micro-businesses is to ask local authorities to ensure that companies that are experts in their fields are not effectively excluded by the use of consolidated contracts that favour larger businesses that might be a jack of all trades but a master of none?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point, because this is precisely why we are working with the Local Government Association on its local procurement programme. The programme is looking in particular at what are sometimes described as micro-lots, which are used as a means of breaking up a large contract into smaller bundles, which are specifically designed to be more accessible to smaller firms and providers.
T4.  Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Even though a five-star dinner at the Savoy, which was paid for by the lobbyist Bell Pottinger, had in attendance at least one firm that had an application in with the Secretary of State’s Department, he says that he has no reason to register it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because that day he was eating not as a Minister but as a private person. If we are to have a robust, transparent system of lobbying, does he not think that that loophole needs to be closed, so that we do not have to guess on which days Members are eating privately and on which they are eating ministerially?
Mr Speaker: Order. I wanted to hear the question, but the registration of Members’ interests is undertaken by Members in their capacity as Members, rather than as Ministers. I suspect that there will be a correspondence or exchange subsequently, but that is my understanding of the position.
T7.  Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con): Southend council is facing a sensitive planning application to build a hospice on green belt land. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give to local residents that that would not create a precedent for more building on the green belt?
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark): My hon. Friend knows that I cannot comment on that particular application, for reasons that he understands, but I think it has been clear from our exchanges today that our determination is to protect the green belt through the national planning policy framework, and to take away the threats that are placed on local councils to remove it.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 600
T5.  Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab): As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme and a strong supporter of the British Legion, I am concerned to ensure that returning service personnel receive the strongest possible support. Why, therefore, did the Minister admit on 10 February that his Department had done nothing to assess the housing needs of that group?
Grant Shapps: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady intended to suggest that I had made that comment, but let me reassure her that I have held a returning forces summit to talk about and act upon those people’s rights to get into new-build homes and to get to the top of the waiting lists. I can further tell her that it is my intention to ensure that they have No. 1 priority when we launch the tenancy directions in a week or two. It is the absolute priority of our Department to ensure that returning personnel get every advantage when it comes to new homes.
T8.  Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): With reference to planning policy, what measures are the Government going to introduce to ensure that councils can encourage businesses to thrive and prosper, and encourage new ones to come to their area?
Mr Pickles: This is happening in relation not only to our planning policy but to the change in the way local government is financed. We have heard some discussion about the new homes bonus, and we are changing and repatriating the business rate. We are also working alongside business in the new enterprise partnerships, rather than dictating to it as the previous lot did.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): Greater Manchester is set to lose up to 500 firefighters during this Parliament. How can it be right that Greater Manchester fire service faces a two-year funding cut of 9% when Essex and Cheshire will enjoy an increase of 2%?
Robert Neill: The fire distribution formula is based essentially on a needs element, which in turn looks at the pressures on the fire authority, including risks and issues that arise from being urban. In fact, as I said in response to an earlier question, I increased the weighting given to urban factors within the formula. Larger authorities often have the greatest ability to deal with shared services, joint operation and better procurement. The spending power reduction takes account of reserves and council tax, and always remains significantly less.
T9.  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con): Many companies in my constituency are finding it hard to cope financially at the moment. What action will the Minister take to boost local enterprise and local business in Kent?
I am sure my hon. Friend will be delighted with today’s announcement of the regional growth fund expansion in east Kent, including the funding of small and medium-sized enterprises. This supports delivery of critical infrastructure to provide jobs, and at £40 million it is one of the highest awards. I am delighted that the regional growth fund is helping investor technology,
31 Oct 2011 : Column 601
and we are seeing the start-up of a local enterprise partnership at the Sandwich site to deal with those questions relating to Pfizer.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Is the Secretary of State aware that when the working neighbourhoods fund was created, local authorities in Bolsover and Chesterfield provided lots of apprenticeships in north Derbyshire. Unless that working neighbourhoods fund is continued through 2012, those apprenticeships, which are like the song and dance of one of his ministerial colleagues, will be gone. What will he do about that?
Mr Pickles: Before the hon. Gentleman gets into his version of the two step, let me tell him that the former Labour Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), announced the ending of the working neighbourhoods fund, which ended in March. We found some transitional relief, so if the hon. Gentleman is interested in dancing, I suggest he do a tango with his right hon. Friend.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): Wiltshire council continues to spend eye-watering sums of taxpayers’ money on redundancy payments. Will the Secretary of State back last year’s Audit Commission recommendation that councils should publish details of such severance payments within a short, set time period?
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab): Controversially, developers in Rochdale wish to build 600 houses on the site of what was the world’s biggest asbestos factory. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), say why, during a recent party political visit to Rochdale, he held a private meeting at the site with the council’s head of planning, which excluded everyone else, including long-standing local community campaigners?
Robert Neill: All meetings are dealt with appropriately through the codes. The hon. Gentleman will know full well that in any planning application all matters must be dealt with entirely appropriately and transparently.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con): Time and again, my constituents complain about the effects of garden-grabbing on the character of local neighbourhoods. Will my hon. Friend assure me and the House that planning reforms will protect residential gardens, and stop inappropriate development in future?
Mr Pickles: The hon. Gentleman seems to scoff at the idea. Having being in Teesside, it seems to me that job prospects are considerably enhanced. Frankly, he should get behind that, and not criticise it.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 602
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con): I thank the Secretary of State for visiting Great Yarmouth last week and seeing our enterprise zone at first hand. With the announcement then of businesses already signing up to an enterprise zone, and today a signature to the memorandum of understanding with Scottish Power for our port and outer harbour, does he agree that such working together by local authorities and businesses will see the growth of real jobs through enterprise zones?
Mr Pickles: I was very impressed by what I saw in Great Yarmouth, which has within it Nelson ward—the fourth most deprived ward in the country. What impressed me was people’s determination. Great Yarmouth had an opportunity, about 30 years ago, to become the Aberdeen of the south, and with the move towards carbon capture and similar moves on energy it has an opportunity to become a major driving force within the United Kingdom.
Is the Secretary of State aware that Notting Hill Housing Trust, a housing association, is reported to be marketing overseas some of the homes that it is currently building? Although it may be understandable for private builders facing the very serious crisis in selling properties to do this, is it not totally unacceptable, at a time of chronic need for housing for British people here in this country, for a housing association to be selling homes overseas? What is the Minister going to do about it?
Grant Shapps: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has a long history in housing, and I will certainly undertake to look into the subject that he has raised. Let me mention something else that has come to my attention. A lot of people who are in council houses have second homes, and they rent out their main home or the council home. That is another scandal that I am sure he will appreciate our bringing to an end.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con): I very much welcome the establishment of the new national social housing HomeSwap website. Is it not a shame that the shadow Housing Minister describes it as a “gimmick”, particularly since his party destroyed the last one?
Grant Shapps: The opportunity for people in social housing to be able to swap homes in exactly the same way as in the private rented sector, or indeed for home owners, is absolutely invaluable. The scheme says a lot about this Government’s intention of ensuring that social mobility applies to all. It is a great pity that the Opposition spokesman criticised it, given that it will give people the opportunity to move for social reasons, family reasons, and, of course, work.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): The Government have made much of localism. Does the Minister believe that it is appropriate that local people and Lewisham council can prevent further betting shops in Deptford high street, given that we already have eight betting shops and four pawnbrokers? Will he revise the Use Classes Order 2010?
31 Oct 2011 : Column 603
Greg Clark: The right hon. Lady rightly takes up the cause of her constituents, as do other Members across the country. We are taking this very seriously, and we will have more to say about it during the weeks ahead.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con):
Does the Minister with responsibility for localism believe that Government, and indeed local government, websites can provide an invaluable way of allowing ordinary
31 Oct 2011 : Column 604
people to express their point of view? If 100,000 people were to express a point of view, does he think that they should be listened to? A simple yes will suffice.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 605
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker): Since the feed-in tariffs scheme started, it has been successful in encouraging people up and down the country to get involved in local, clean green energy generation. Solar photovoltaic has led the way, and more than 100,000 homes now generate their own electricity. It is a very attractive technology to install, driving forward the coalition’s ambitious, decentralised energy agenda, but let us be clear: the current returns now available on solar PV investments, funded by energy consumers through our energy bills, are unsustainable. Falling PV costs mean that returns are at least double those originally envisaged for the scheme. This does not provide value for money to consumers. If we do not act now, the entire £867 million budget for the current spending review period would be fully committed within the next few months. That would limit the number of people able to benefit from feed-in tariffs.
We are therefore consulting on new tariffs for solar PV installations. Owing to the urgency involved, we propose that the new tariffs would apply to all new installations that become eligible for FITs on or after a “reference date”, which we propose should be 12 December. We are also seeking views on other proposals, including one to strengthen the link between feed-in tariffs and energy efficiency. It cannot be right, and it is a fault of the system that we inherited, that we subsidise renewable energy generation on energy-inefficient buildings.
We are determined to secure the continued success of feed-in tariffs through sustainable growth, not boom and bust. We are consulting on new tariffs for solar PV to secure the FITs budget in the interests of all eligible technologies and to bring greater coherence to the Government’s ambitious policies to green Britain’s homes.
Caroline Flint: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for forcing the Government to come to the Commons today. With thousands of jobs and businesses at risk, it was rather a surprise that the Government wanted only to issue a written statement. It is a shame that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change could not spare the time to be here.
Today’s announcement is yet another example of a Government who are out of touch, are cutting too far and too fast, and have no plan for jobs and growth. Last year, the solar industry employed 3,000 people in 450 businesses. Today, it employs 25,000 people in 3,000 businesses. With growth flatlining everywhere else, today’s announcement threatens to strangle at birth the solar industry. It is a kick in the teeth for families who want to do the right thing by investing in solar. The new proposals guarantee that lower-income households will lose out, as fewer firms offer the lifetime deals that are currently available, and that solar will be available only to the well-off.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 606
The Minister claims that installation costs have fallen by 30%. That is partly, I would argue, because of the mass, bulk investment in this new industry. If that is so, why have the Government reduced the tariffs by more than 50%? With a new rate of 21p per kWh, how many jobs and businesses have been put at risk? The UK has installed only 3% of the solar energy installed in Germany in the past two years. Is that the level of the Government’s ambition—3% of German productivity?
The Minister claims that the current scheme could add £26 to domestic electricity bills. The fact is that this Government’s failure to stand up to the powerful vested interests in the energy industry has led to £175 being added to bills in the past six months alone.
Will the Minister tell us why, when the consultation is not due to finish until 23 December, the cut-off point for eligibility under the existing scheme is 12 December? What does he say to people who have already commissioned domestic solar power systems and paid a deposit, but who, through no fault of their own, will not manage to install, certify and officially register them by 12 December?
Labour started the process of feed-in tariffs and we remain proud of it. It may have needed adjustment as costs fell, but the coalition has messed around with it repeatedly, given out mixed messages and left 25,000 workers in a high-tech industry of the future facing the dole. In opposition, the Conservatives promised a more ambitious scheme; today’s announcement is just another broken promise.
Gregory Barker: This is rather extraordinary, because there has only ever been one substantive vote on feed-in tariffs in the House of Commons. Everyone on this side of the House voted in favour of feed-in tariffs. The right hon. Lady and all her hon. Friends voted against them. Will she apologise because the last Labour Government had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into setting up a feed-in tariff system? Not only that, but they so begrudged it that they set up the worst scheme that they could imagine. The amount of detail that was wrong and the scandalous way in which it was set up by the now Leader of the Opposition were disgraceful. The faults that we are rectifying were created by the previous Government.
The right hon. Lady says that we are out of touch. We may be out of touch with the solar lobby, but we are not out of touch with energy bill payers. She says that they are groaning under a £175 increase, but she wants to put that up. If we did not act now, consumers would face massive increases in energy bills. Today, she has come to the House with a different face on and she does not care about the cost that she proposes to add to energy bills. If energy bills go unchecked, it would add around £1 billion a year—that might be small beer to Opposition Members, but Government Members understand just how much strain energy consumers are under.
The right hon. Lady talks about the level of ambition. We know that had the previous Government had their way, there would be no ambition, because there would be no feed-in tariff scheme. The only reason we have a feed-in tariff scheme is that the Labour Government were defeated in the House of Lords by Liberal Democrats and Conservatives united.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 607
that the right hon. Lady is rushing to make partisan points rather than engaging in a sensible discussion on how we get the best value for money out of the feed-in tariff scheme. We have £867 million. We want it to be spread as widely as possible; she wants it to be enjoyed by the lucky few. Bumper double-digit returns of 10% or 15% for those lucky enough to install panels is disgraceful when people are lucky to get 1%, 2% or 3% at the building society. The Government are recalibrating the return on feed-in tariffs to the level—similar to 5%—that was originally intended. I am afraid that the right hon. Lady is the one who is out of touch.
Finally, the right hon. Lady asks why eligibility will start from 12 December. It is very simple. Were we not to do that, and were we to announce a change now and leave the current arrangements in place until next April, there would be a massive gold-rush, and the entire budget for feed-in tariffs—the entire £867 million—would be gone by then. The last people from whom we should take lessons on how to manage a budget are Labour Members.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): As someone who thinks it is very important that we get lower energy bills, I welcome any move in the right direction. Will the Minister tell us how much his proposals might knock off the bill, and will there be other measures to get the price down further?
Gregory Barker: This is saving money rather than knocking money off the bill, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are absolutely determined to ensure that green policies deliver real value for money. Unlike the Opposition, we are engaged not in some sort of illusion of green never-never land, but in the realities of what will deliver savings to consumers now, and real green jobs and growth. It is that rather than wishful thinking that informs our policy making.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): What are the implications for housing associations, such as Peabody, which by providing solar energy in my constituency is helping the very poorest in the country to cut their energy bills?
Gregory Barker: That will depend on the assumptions that the housing association has made of the rate of return that it will get. If it worked on the basis of the rate of return that was originally intended for the scheme when the right hon. Lady was in the Department—that is, around 5%—it will have absolutely no problem in going forward. If it has based the rate of return on the inflated rate that we have seen this year as a result of the dramatic fall in prices—conservative estimates are that the fall in costs is 30%, but others, such as Bloomberg, say that it is up to 70%—and if it is assuming a double-digit rate of return, it will struggle to finance the scheme.
However, I would say to the right hon. Lady, who I know is committed to this agenda, that we must see this stage of feed-in tariffs as building the foundations of a decentralised system that includes a large element of solar. However, even given the high costs of solar, at 21p it will attract the highest level of any subsidy of mainstream technologies. At that level, we cannot simply give an open cheque for unfettered deployment.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 608
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): The requirement for participants in the scheme to achieve a certain energy efficiency will work against people in rural houses with solid walls, who will find that difficult to achieve. Will the Minister say something about those people, who are often in fuel poverty?
Gregory Barker: Yes, we want much greater integration in the Government’s various policies, certainly the ones that we inherited. We think that before anybody does anything they should improve the energy efficiency of their home. That obviously presents particular problems for people in rural areas, which is why the green deal will include a substantial element of annual subsidy through the energy company obligation, which will particularly help those with solid walls and in off-grid and rural areas.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab): Given that the installation and registration deadline for the existing tariff is 11 days prior to the close of consultation, will the Minister confirm whether it is a new Government policy to consult on things despite having already fixed a deadline? If, on the other hand, the consultation finds that the deadline is inappropriate and the Government reach that conclusion after listening to the public, what will they do about those who fall into the gap in the meantime?
Gregory Barker: This is a difficult issue. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are trying to save the budget. If we were to leave this scheme open until next April, as we had originally intended—although we said that we would act if there was an urgent need, and there is—there would be a run on the fund. The cut-off date will be 12 December, but people will not get a reduction in tariffs until April. It is complex. It is driven by the fact that there is a run on the budget, and we are acting responsibly to preserve the budget for lots of other consumers and to ensure that it does not just disappear in the next few months.
Gregory Barker: Of course, in socialist Spain we have seen boom and bust writ large, with the entire solar tariff scheme collapsing, causing a complete run in confidence. Elsewhere across Europe, we have also seen massive falls in solar prices. The more nimble, smarter tariff schemes have adjusted down their tariffs. We aim to get ours on a par with something similar to that in Germany.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 609
the planning regulations for small wind energy. For that reason, the 55 people now on the dole do not accept the Government’s proposition that they are the greenest Government ever. What evidence can the Minister give me that today’s announcement will be any different from previous commitments and that this is not just empty rhetoric with no substance?
Gregory Barker: It will not be a surprise that I disagree strongly with the hon. Gentleman. We are the greenest Government ever. This is the Government who have put £3 billion into a green investment bank; who have cut their emissions by 13.5%, despite Opposition Members saying that it was not possible; and who are backing green energy and have an ambitious plan for a whole range of technologies, and who are not one-club golfing.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con): I understand the necessity of ensuring a sustainable scheme, but will the Minister assure me that the voices of small companies such as C. Gascoigne, a family-based electrical installation company in my constituency, will be heard as part of the consultation and that it will not be left just to the big companies to set the policy?
Gregory Barker: Absolutely. It is because we value the work of small and medium-sized enterprises and smaller companies that we do not want many of the larger companies simply to gobble up the whole budget within months. We will be listening carefully to SMEs and trying to provide a sustainable pathway that they can build on.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): I believe that the Minister is aware of Brighton energy co-op in my constituency, which uses investment for local people for community-owned solar panels. The project’s director is deeply concerned about the impact of these new proposals. Will he offer a stay of execution for community projects with planning permission so that they can get up and running and not be bound by the December deadline?
Gregory Barker: One of the faults of the scheme that we inherited from the Labour Government was that there was no way of recognising within the tariffs any sort of community scheme. One way in which we will reform the scheme will be to consider creating a special tariff for community schemes, which were totally ignored in the system set up by Labour Members.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 610
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman knows that I have been campaigning for those off the gas grid. Many people who do not have mains gas pay the highest winter fuel costs; is there a possibility that those who have moved over to PV will be looked at specially? Is there a special discount for people who do not have mains gas?
Gregory Barker: There is no special discount for those off mains gas, but obviously the counter-factual makes the offer even more attractive for them. I would encourage those such as the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who are off-gas not only to look at solar PV, but to look at the renewable heat incentive and the renewable heat premium payments, which are already out there, and to see whether they can apply for some of the vouchers for the range of technologies that will help them with their heating, which will form a much larger proportion of their annual energy bills than electricity.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I very much welcome the Minister’s comments to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about community schemes. May I urge him to look closely at this issue? In my constituency, Wadebridge renewable energy network—which I believe he is aware of—is looking hard at the scheme, which could have huge benefits as the money is reinvested to deliver more carbon reduction schemes across our communities.
Gregory Barker: We are keen to encourage community schemes wherever we can, but we have a budget to manage and it is clear that demand far, far outstrips supply, particularly with the current, inflated subsidies. We are therefore trying to recalibrate the scheme and put it on a sound footing, to ensure that the money will be available for years to come to support exactly the sorts of schemes to which my hon. Friend refers.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Given that cost is the main criterion, why have the Government not reconsidered the costs of nuclear power, which are ballooning? Is it not true that the coalition has been taken over by the bad science loonies of global warming denial?
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): I share people’s concerns about the suddenness of the change and the effect on individuals and organisations that were already planning solar installations between December and April and had budgeted appropriately. One example is Ridgefield, a new primary school in my constituency. Will the Minister consider carefully whether exemptions could be made for deserving cases such as that?
Gregory Barker: I am afraid it is just not possible to make exemptions in such a system. We need to drive down the cost of solar. We will achieve that by ensuring that people do not price to the tariff but are incentivised to bring down costs. We need to ensure that the fall in costs internationally is passed on to consumers and that the industry does not continue to price to the tariff.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 611
Gregory Barker: This may come as a surprise, but we have a team on this side of the House. I have been leading on this issue, and the Secretary of State is very happy for me to do so. [ Interruption. ]
Mr Speaker: Order. This is not said pejoratively, but I have noticed that whenever the Minister is in the Chamber, Opposition Members seem to get very wound up and excited. I do not know whether it is his fault that he winds them up or their fault that they allow themselves to be wound up, but the House needs to calm down a little.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): I appreciate that something had to be done about the overly large tariff subsidies, but Electrical and Testing Services in my constituency is worried about the speed of change. What advice and guidance will my hon. Friend give to small businesses so that they can get through the transition period without having to lose any staff?
Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to look to the interests of small businesses, many of which were feeling slightly excluded, because of the speed with which larger firms were gobbling up the budget. It is because we want to preserve the budget over the longer term that it will be more sustainable for smaller businesses. However, I would recommend such businesses to look not just at solar PV, but at integrating a range of technologies into their offer—in particular, energy efficiency—and at how they might offer services for the green deal.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op): Feed-in tariffs should be about more than just solar. What is the Minister doing to help small businesses that are working on innovation and other technologies to compete and to provide a wide range of technologies for people to chose from, particularly when we get into the green deal?
Gregory Barker: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The danger was that solar, which was already taking more than 90% of the feed-in tariff budget, would take the whole lot. There are a lot of other micro-technologies out there that I want to see supported, such as micro-hydro, micro-combined heat and power, small-scale wind and small-scale biomass technologies. There are lots of different technologies that we need to come into the system and that also need fair funding. There are, of course, opportunities in the comprehensive reviews to look at the support for other tariffs, and we may even consider raising them where they act as an insufficient incentive to bring on those other technologies.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): The Minister may be aware of a recent research paper produced by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which estimates that solar produces three times as much carbon per kWh as other renewable technologies such as wind and nuclear. Why are we subsidising solar more than the others?
31 Oct 2011 : Column 612
Gregory Barker: I am not aware of that particular paper, but I have to say that I remain a fan of solar. The issue is about the cost of solar. The fact is that it currently attracts four times as much subsidy as any other form of renewable generation. It is not viable to have a mass roll-out of that technology when costs are still that high. We need to bring the costs down. When we get to that point, we will see a mass roll-out in the UK—but not before costs have been brought down further.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): The Minister has not answered one important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)—that he has buckled under pressure from the big six energy producers. Is it not the truth that they make money out of selling electricity and they do not want competition?
Gregory Barker: That is why, unlike the previous Government, we are bringing forward transformational proposals as part of our electricity market reform. We have already had one Energy Bill in this Parliament; another will be along shortly.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): I fully appreciate that the previous Government intended to reduce feed-in tariffs at some stage. However, what assessment does the Minister make of the effect of this announcement on small and medium-sized enterprises that have flourished in installing solar PV over the past couple of years?
Gregory Barker: They have flourished only really in the last few months. The rate of deployment doubled between September and June. We are seeing an extraordinary bubble that has grown over the past few months. Of course, these enterprises will see their order books reduced relative to the past few months, but we need to put them on a sustainable footing. A lot of people in the industry have raised such concerns privately with me. Anyone who talks to solar producers knows that they realise that there needs to be responsible and sustainable growth, not a quick burst.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab): What about the 100 jobs lost and the effect on 4,000 households in Stoke-on-Trent as a result of what seems to be retrospective legislation through consultation? Surely the Government should do the right thing and allow at least those applications that are in the pipeline not to be affected so severely by any change in tariff.
Gregory Barker: It is our judgment—it is a matter of judgment; I do not pretend that we have it absolutely right—that the 12 December cut-off date is a fair assessment of how long it will take those currently in the system to get through to deployment. That is why we landed on that 12 December cut-off date, but I appreciate that there might be individual exceptions to that rule. I say to the hon. Lady that this is about creating a sustainable future. The Labour party accused me earlier in the spring of butchering the solar industry, since when deployment has trebled.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 613
asked them to do, and created growth, businesses and jobs—yet they now face an uncertain business model going forward. Will the Minister agree to meet me and small business owners in this industry in my constituency to discuss the practical impact of these changes?
Gregory Barker: I am happy to meet my hon. Friend, but he must understand that the one thing that would be absolutely wrong would be to encourage these firms to rush forward in a burst of growth knowing that the money would run out in a matter of months. A sustainable pathway for growth is what they need.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): On a day when the Government are saying that they are in favour of jobs and growth, I find it extraordinary that the Minister is standing at the Dispatch Box and criticising Labour Members for arguing for small businesses which have invested on the basis of Government policy. These businesses will be completely shafted in six weeks’ time by his decision not to implement a satisfactory stable investment framework. What impact does he think his decision today will have on future investment in the solar industry in the UK?
Gregory Barker: I find this scaremongering and doom-mongering from Labour Members to be absolutely reprehensible. We are taking the scheme back to the same rate of return as when it was launched 18 months ago. We are simply trying to reduce the bubble created by the ineffective scheme set up by Labour. We believe in a sustainable path for growth, not in boom and bust like the Labour party.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con): Will the Minister confirm that the cost of solar installation has fallen by 30% in less than two years? If that is the case, is it not right for feed-in tariffs to be adjusted accordingly?
Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is right, and in fact the cost of some systems has fallen by much more than 30%. Bloomberg estimates that the cost of some of them has fallen by more than 50%—indeed, by up to 70%. This is not a United Kingdom phenomenon; prices have tumbled spectacularly throughout Europe. However, because of the ineffective system that we inherited from the Labour party, there was no way in which tariffs could keep pace with that.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): The last fast-track of the solar feed-in tariff was derided because nothing—I repeat, nothing—changed as a result of the consultation. This consultation will end after the date of the start of the new scheme. May I ask the Minister, in all seriousness, what impact assessment he has made in relation to the number of community schemes that are currently in progress but will not proceed as a direct result of his proposals and the 12 December deadline?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, because it was he who accused me of butchering the industry after the last review. Since then, deployment has trebled. He was wrong earlier in the
31 Oct 2011 : Column 614
year, and he will be spectacularly wrong again. He will know that because of the way in which the system was set up under the—
If hon. Members will calm down slightly, I will answer their question. Perhaps they will allow me to get the words out.
The fact is that the way in which the system was constructed—[Interruption.] I am trying to give the answer. Because of the way in which the system was constructed, there is no way of rewarding community schemes. There is no tariff for communities. There is no way of distinguishing between a City hedge fund manager and a village hall because of the way in which the system was constructed by the last Government. We will try to change that so that we can specifically recognise community schemes, and we will consult on that work.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): I must declare an interest. We recently had solar PV installed on our roof. The people next door saw it, and they now have it as well. I understand that the scheme has been a victim of its own success, but how confident is my hon. Friend that the change in tariffs will not cut off the growth of, and interest in, solar PV as a source of renewable energy in other households?
Gregory Barker: Obviously there is a difficult balance to be struck, and I know that many firms will find it difficult to navigate the system, especially in the short term. I must make it clear, however, that it would have been wrong to do nothing, and to allow the whole budget to be burnt through in a matter of months. Had we done that, the industry would have been looking at oblivion, but now, thanks to timely intervention, it can look at a sustainable pathway to growth.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): What would the Minister say to the work force and management of Kingspan, a firm in my constituency that manufactures solar panels and solar cells? A representative of that firm told me on the telephone this very morning that the effect of the Minister’s decision on pre-order contracts will cost it £12 million between January and April next year. Is that the way to improve manufacturing industry in Britain?
Gregory Barker: What I would say is that we intend to reduce tariffs to levels comparable with those in Germany, which has the highest level of renewables deployment in Europe. We are lowering tariffs to encourage market competitiveness. Kingspan is a great company that manufactures a range of products, not least insulation products, which will benefit from a boom as a result of the roll-out of the green deal between now and 2020.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): I note the need to recalibrate and safeguard the budget, but does the Minister agree that it is important to encourage local councils to create the right framework for investment in a package of energy-saving measures?
Absolutely. We must get away from the silo culture that concentrates exclusively on solar PV, on the technological flavour of the month, or on one or two types of intervention. We need an holistic approach to energy measures, the most important of which is energy efficiency and the least important the
31 Oct 2011 : Column 615
generation of electricity. The right hierarchy consists of energy efficiency, then heat, then renewable electricity, and local authorities are key partners in that regard.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): The Minister said at the solar photovoltaics conference last Friday that he had not come to kill solar PV tariffs. Does he accept that these appalling policy lurches—two in the past three months—are killing the solar industry’s future, as was reflected by all those present at that conference? Will he now review the time scale for the most recent lurch, and at the very least extend it so that those who currently have contracts up to when there was originally going to be a review can carry out that work? Otherwise, no one will ever believe anything that he says about any tariffs in the future.
Gregory Barker: I am afraid the Labour party’s credibility on this issue is ripped to shreds. It said in the spring that the industry would be butchered, since when deployments per month have trebled.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): Has the Minister had the opportunity to examine other countries around the world that have cut the feed-in tariff to see what impact it has had? For example, has he considered the Labour Government in New South Wales, which slashed the cost of the feed-in tariff to a third of its original value and set a cap on it for the very same reasons that he has given today?
Gregory Barker: Around the world, sensible Governments worried about energy bills are taking similar steps and introducing similar measures. Germany, which has the largest renewable deployment in the European Union, has a similar level of feed-in tariff for solar.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab): The Minister mentioned a silo culture, yet the Government are cutting feed-in tariffs, which are creating British jobs in companies such as Romag in my constituency. At the same time, they are providing regional growth fund money to companies to import Chinese panels to be assembled here and then sold on as British. Is that a deliberate policy to put at risk British jobs, or it is just sheer incompetence?
Gregory Barker: We are very supportive of excellent companies such as Romag, and we want to see more advanced manufacturing in this country. However, £867 million is the budget, and we have to ensure that it lasts and is sustainable rather than all being blown in a few months.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 616
for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), and bearing it in mind that the policy will be implemented before the end of the consultation period, may I plead with him to keep the matter under review and come back to the House before 12 December to explain where he has reached at that point? Will he keep the cut-off date under review, with the intention of perhaps extending it?
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): The Minister is right that we cannot consider the matter in isolation. In the light of his Government’s decision to betray the good faith of all those who have invested in the solar panel industry on the basis of feed-in tariffs, how will the Government now convince any potential investors in UK manufacturing that the Government can be trusted to stick to policies that encourage manufacturing, to avoid the immeasurable damage that the lack of that investment would cause?
Gregory Barker: That sort of hysterical response does very little to help the industry. The fact is that the feed-in tariff scheme was set up to provide a return in the region of 5%. Now, 18 months on, we are recalibrating the scheme to provide a return in the same region. Everything else is a bubble. The hon. Lady’s constituents’ energy bills pay for the scheme, and we cannot simply waste energy bill payers’ money.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab): Pensioners in nearly 200 council bungalows in the Dearne are set to benefit from new solar panels free of charge. That scheme, which was put together by Barnsley council and Berneslai Homes, is at risk from the Minister’s announcement this afternoon. He has told the House that without these changes, he is worried that solar panels will become available only to the lucky few. Is not the truth that, with the changes, they will become available only to the wealthy few?
Gregory Barker: Basic maths would inform the right hon. Gentleman that the lower the tariff, the wider the money can be spread. If there is a very high tariff, the finite amount of money that we have can go to only a few people. The lower the tariff, the more people can benefit. It is basic maths.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 617
Points of Order
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made it very clear on a number of occasions that Government announcements should be made first to this House. Over the weekend, there were a number of stories in the media, complete with quotes from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, about the contents of today’s written statement about council tax on empty and second homes, which was made available only in the last hour and a half. This is the second time in a week that Communities and Local Government Ministers acting in this way has given rise to a point of order. Do you think such actions are acceptable and, if not, what can be done?
Mr Speaker: I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I shall look into the specifics of this case, and in particular into what he has just said about attributed quotes. Secondly, let me reiterate a point that, as he rightly observes, I have made on innumerable occasions: it is a matter of straightforward courtesy and parliamentary propriety that statements of policy should first be made to this House, not elsewhere, and not by nods and winks or by leaks. I hope that is clear.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a statement on the eurozone crisis. As the Prime Minister has now returned to the country, many people would have expected him to come to the House today to give his report on the recent summit, and especially on the proposals for the creation of a two-tier Europe. To my knowledge, this is the first time that the Prime Minister has not appeared before the House in such circumstances. Will you take such steps as are necessary to urge him to do so on this vital question that affects not only this House but the whole of the country?
Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member with 27 years’ service in the House, so he will know better than most of his parliamentary colleagues that whether Ministers make statements—and if so, when—is a matter for Ministers, not the Chair. However, through making his point of order, he has made his point, which may possibly have been his intention.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I make it clear that the topical question that I asked earlier about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was about the ministerial code, which was altered last year, and which
“obliges ministers to declare all hospitality accepted in a ‘ministerial capacity’ and all meetings with external organisations”?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and let me level with him: when he asked his question in DCLG questions, it was not clear to me—perhaps it should have been; perhaps the fault
31 Oct 2011 : Column 618
was mine—that the question was framed around the Minister acting in his ministerial capacity, with reference to the relevance of the ministerial code. It was because I thought as I did at the time that I ruled as I did. However, since then the hon. Gentleman has come along with, from my point of view, further and better information. I am grateful to him for explaining the point, and I hope he will accept my response in the spirit in which it is intended. It is always a dangerous enterprise to joust with somebody who has written a book about how to be a Back Bencher.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Thursday morning, I discovered that my substantive oral question to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the impact of levels of bank lending on small and medium-sized businesses, which had been accepted by the Table Office and drawn first in the shuffle, had been removed from the Order Paper at the instigation of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which claimed that it was a Treasury responsibility. I was informed by the Table Office that I had been written to by the Department on Monday evening. I regret to inform you that neither my constituency office, nor my Westminster office received any such letter. Neither was I e-mailed or contacted by telephone by the Department, with the result that the first I was made aware of the question being transferred was through its absence from the Order Paper on Thursday morning and my subsequent inquiry at the Table Office.
I was most grateful to be able to catch your eye during topical questions, Mr Speaker, but the behaviour of the Department raises real concerns about the high-handed way in which the Government are treating legitimate questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members. Can you offer any advice on how Departments should behave in such circumstances in future to ensure that the fundamental democratic right of this House to hold the Executive properly to account is protected and that Members are treated with the courtesy they should expect when raising matters on behalf of their constituents? Have you received any indication from the Business Secretary regarding his intention to come to the House to make a statement on why he is no longer prepared to answer for the Government’s record on bank lending, although he was prepared to respond to such questions as late as June?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The short answer to his question is that of course transfers are a matter for the Department concerned, but the Department that makes a transfer of a right hon. or hon. Member’s question should do so at the earliest possible stage and should accept responsibility for directly notifying the Member well in advance of the fact of that change. Failure to meet that test is a discourtesy, both to the hon. Member and to the House. I think it is helpful, and probably not entirely coincidental, that as the hon. Gentleman has raised this important point of order, he has done so in the presence of the
31 Oct 2011 : Column 619
Leader of the House, who I know will have such communications with his colleagues as are necessary to secure an improvement in conduct.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could give me some guidance on whether the Secretary of State should come to this Chamber to answer urgent questions, such as the one we heard on feed-in tariffs—
Mr Speaker: Order. I do not mean to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman in any way, but it was obvious where his question was headed. The short answer is that the choice of Minister to respond to an urgent question is exclusively a matter for the Government. Members can have an opinion about it, and they may have wanted Mr Secretary Huhne to be here this afternoon as opposed to Minister Barker, but that is a judgment entirely for the Government. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will know, ever since Edward II was removed by Parliament as King, the royal succession has been a matter for the whole of Parliament—for both Houses—to determine. I wholly welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has gone off to Australia and announced that he is going to bring in some changes in respect of the royal succession, but he has not brought them to this House first. In particular, he has referred to one element of this—the matter of the male preference primogeniture—but has made absolutely no reference to the issue of how the succession should be dealt with in relation to Catholics and marriage to Catholics. Will you make sure, in so far as you are able, and as previous Speakers have done when such matters have arisen, that this issue is brought to the Floor of the House, either in the form of a statement or by some other means so that we can all inform the Prime Minister exactly how we approve of what he has done and how we would like him to go further?
Mr Speaker: I have no idea what my predecessors did or did not do in relation to comparable matters, and the history books would have to be studied by me with some intensity and speed in order for me to answer that point made by the hon. Gentleman. But his wider point I take, and he has registered it—I think that was probably his main purpose for today. Wherever the Prime Minister is, there is a real prospect that the verdict of the Voice of Rhondda will be made known to him. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman rather pessimistically chunters from a sedentary position that he thinks that that is unlikely, but he should live in hope; we all attach importance to his words.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 620
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
That, notwithstanding that such provisions could not have been proposed in Committee without an Instruction from the House, amendments may be proposed on Consideration of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill to—
(a) provide for measures against the payment or receipt of referral fees in connection with the provision of legal services,
(b) create a new offence relating to squatting, and
(c) amend section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc).
The motion seeks to widen the scope of the Bill in order to provide for measures to be introduced on the payment of referral fees, on the creation of a new criminal offence relating to squatting and to amend the law that governs the use of reasonable force for the purposes of self defence.
I hope that this debate will be focused on the resolution and therefore be a short procedural debate. Obviously, there are points of substance to debate in the three areas that we are bringing into scope, but the obvious time to debate those issues is when we reach them in the course of your selection of amendments, Mr Speaker. We are all anxious to debate other measures in the Bill, for which we will have three full days on Report, so I think we should deal quickly with procedural matters and get on to the substance.
On sentencing, quite a lot will come tomorrow which I look forward to debating. I am being attacked from the right and from the left—that is the story of my life—but I regard all those attacks as entirely misconceived and I hope to answer them tomorrow. More importantly, today we have a lot of amendments on the Order Paper regarding legal aid and it is important that we get on to consider their merits on the Floor of the House in the light of debates in Committee. I hope, therefore, that the House will be satisfied if I merely explain why we are introducing measures on these three topics and bringing them to Floor of the House rather late in the day, on Report.
Referral fees are a familiar subject and have been discussed on the Floor several times in recent months. Since they were introduced—or since the ban on solicitors’ paying referral fees was lifted—in 2004, they have increased very rapidly and have contributed to an unwelcome increase in personal injury cases in our courts. They have tended to encourage the introduction of speculative claims and have certainly raised the cost of contesting litigation. The reason we have waited until Report to introduce amendments on the subject is that the proposals have been out to consultation for a few months and the consultation closed only recently. Even during the consultation we were under pressure from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) to do something about this issue; I entirely agreed with the points he made and the Government are now responding.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 621
in the Bill. The consultation closed on 5 October. Anyone who has suffered from the presence of squatters in their property knows the distress and misery they cause. We have restricted the new criminal offence to residential properties precisely to avoid opening up the wider debate that might have ensued on squatting and I am not aware of any strong reaction to what we are doing. Existing laws provide some safeguards for property owners, but our making squatting in residential buildings a criminal offence will provide rather greater protection in circumstances where the harm caused is most severe. Again, I am not aware of much objection in principle to those measures. Personally, I have always found it difficult to see the difference between taking somebody’s car and taking somebody’s home. There is a need for a criminal offence.
Finally, the Prime Minister also announced on 21 June that we would put beyond doubt that home owners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted. We think that further action on self-defence is necessary to reassure members of the public that they are allowed to use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties against intruders or others.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC): How will this law differ from the common law right to defend property and the existing law on self-defence under which one can use proportionate and reasonable violence to defend oneself?
Mr Clarke: I will address that when we reach the amendments in two days’ time—[ Interruption. ] Well, that is exactly where the Labour Government were two years ago. We are attempting to clarify the law and reassure people that the use of reasonable force is indeed legitimate in English law. The main thing it deals with is the fact that there is no duty to retreat when facing a dangerous or threatening attack, but we will discuss that when we come to that part of the Bill. If that was a fundamental change in the law, I would probably face objections to its introduction on Report. It is an attempt once more to build up public confidence in the perfectly reasonable right people have to use legitimate force when defending themselves and their property.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): I happen to be sympathetic to all three things the Secretary of State is trying to do, but surely he must take account of the fact that the procedures of the House, which he is trying to bypass, provide that there should be a general discussion on the principle of doing something, followed by a detailed discussion in Committee of how it can be done and then an opportunity to make further amendments on Report if necessary. Does he not have to mount quite a strong case that that is unnecessary in these circumstances?
The case I am making is that there are essentially no surprises here, because Members have been perfectly well aware of the proposals for all three subjects. They have been debated widely and consulted on, and we are introducing them in a form that I do not think adds a great deal of controversy to the Bill. As we
31 Oct 2011 : Column 622
all know, the Bill is very large and included some very important elements. These three subjects are relevant to what we are trying to do to the justice system. The right to self-defence was in the coalition agreement when the Government were formed, so everyone knew that we would return to it, and the Prime Minister announced it again in June. Banning referral fees was in Lord Justice Jackson’s report on reform of civil litigation costs, which we are already acting on, as far as no win, no fee arrangements are concerned. We delayed making proposals on referral fees because we were waiting for the Legal Services Board to give its opinion following consultation. We have been consulting on squatting, as I have said. The inclusion of these subjects is hardly surprising. All three have been referred to and debated on the Floor of the House, so I hope that it will agree to extend the scope of the Bill.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I think that my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right and I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). There is plenty of time to debate this, it was well heralded and is not a great departure. I wish my right hon. and learned Friend well with it.
Mr Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I think that we should move on to the important debates on legal aid today. I hope that the House is genuinely satisfied that these are three sensible subjects that are closely related to reform of the justice system and will allow us to widen the scope of the Bill, as I propose.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): May I begin my reassuring the Justice Secretary that we will not divide the House on the motion? We accept that the next three days should be spent discussing the substance of this very important Bill. Over the course of the next three days, the Opposition will submit contributions to demonstrate how out of touch the Government are in this area.
I am afraid that this procedural motion shows that they are also incompetent when it comes to seeking to pass legislation that they feel is important. As the Chair of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), mentioned, none of the matters outlined in the motion—self-defence, squatting and referral fees—was unknown to the coalition Government when they began consultation in May 2010. There have been three separate Green Papers and lots of discussion, debate and consultation. As the Justice Secretary is well aware, No. 10 decided back in June to take over responsibility for the Bill, and at the 11th hour the focus groups told them that these are the measures that might win them some support. He is being attacked not only by the left and the right, but by No. 10.
We do not object to the procedural motion to bring the three things he has referred to into the debate, and I am sure that the Justice Secretary will see over the next three days that we will support some of the measures he has talked about, but it leads one to question why the Government, who for 13 years lectured us on process and procedures—colleagues have just intervened to take about the importance of process on the context of Europe—think that it is not important to discuss these
31 Oct 2011 : Column 623
things and consult community groups and stakeholders about the importance of these measures. I am sure that the other House will be watching this debate and the way the Government are seeking to make legislation on the hoof at the 11th hour.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): I rise to make a few brief comments. First, I welcome the fact that the Government are making proposals to tackle referral fees, which are a scandal and an irritant. Secondly, I welcome what I believe will be clarification of when reasonable force for purposes of self-defence can be used. Finally, the Secretary of State said that he was not aware of any representations having been made on squatting, but Crisis clearly has concerns about the measure’s potential to criminalise those who squat in residential properties that might have been empty over a long period. I hope that when we debate the matter in more detail, it will be made clear that there is not going to be a dragnet that draws in everybody irrespective of how long a property has been empty.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I am sorry to say to the Secretary of State that I wholly deplore the use of this procedural device, because we have a very good, established system in this House of three Readings, Committee and Report, with gaps in between so that people can consider the amendments that have been passed and consider whether other amendments should be tabled so that Opposition Members or Back Benchers can look at what the Government have proposed and suggest amendments of their own in good time. None of that is possible in this situation.
If the measures were for some emergency, I might understand why the Secretary of State had made such a suggestion, but he has suggested absolutely no emergency in relation to any of the three issues today. In fact, his argument, in so far as I can understand it, is that basically, “Nobody really cares about this stuff; it’s all agreed on by everybody”—[ Interruption. ] If he is seeking to intervene, I am happy to give way.
Mr Kenneth Clarke: I share the hon. Gentleman’s sensitivities about the scope of a Bill being widened in the ordinary course of events, but I have already explained how all three things have been canvassed. There has been consultation—indeed, it stopped us introducing them at an earlier stage—and, as he well knows, the pressure on parliamentary time is such that quite a lot of rather worthwhile criminal justice reforms are not enacted for years because no one can find a slot in the legislative timetable for them—[ Interruption. ] There are details, and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who spoke a moment ago, raised a particular detailed point, which will be heard here, and then in the upper House, about exactly what limits there might be on residential property, but this is a sensible process and we should not be sticklers at the expense of worthwhile reform.
Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene on his intervention, but his basic argument is, “This is just for the convenience of Government”—and for no other reason.
31 Oct 2011 : Column 624
In relation to reasonable force, the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument, in so far as I could see it, was that basically, “It isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference, so why not just let it go through?” When Ministers say, “We have to change the ordinary processes for the Government’s convenience, and we know we can do it because we have a majority—by definition, because we are the Government,” we almost always end up with bad legislation, as it is not sufficiently scrutinised. It certainly happened when we sat on the Government Benches, and I am absolutely certain that it will continue to happen now.
Mr Llwyd: I support much of what the hon. Gentleman says. If the measure is not going to make a great deal of change to the substantive law, but is just going to elaborate on or slightly clarify it, why do we need to legislate?
Chris Bryant: Precisely, and it is a bad idea to add to a Bill that is already pretty much a Christmas tree Bill a few more baubles at the last stage before it reaches Third Reading. It is a fundamental mistake and a bad way of proceeding, and I can tell from the body language of the Secretary of State and Lord High Chancellor that he is a little embarrassed about coming forward in this manner—
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said that all these matters have been extensively debated, but it is one thing to debate a matter in its general application and principles but quite a different matter to look at the wording on the page when it actually comes to legislation.
As I understand the rules of this House, given that we have not yet carried the motion before us, no amendments to which the Government have referred can possibly yet have been tabled. So, they will be tabled tonight and appear on the Order Paper tomorrow, and consequently we will not be able to table amendments to those amendments until after that. I can see the Clerk saying “No, no, no”, so perhaps I have got that completely wrong—[ Interruption. ] He is nodding now, so I hope that hon. Members will feel free to ignore the last part of my speech and remember everything I said at the beginning of it, and that they will oppose this ludicrous process.