DEVOLUTION NOW!

Right now, all four local authorities in South Yorkshire should be planning for the May 2018 election of the first Directly-elected Mayor for the Sheffield City Region.  The election of that mayor will provide the opportunity for an additional £30million of Government money to come to the area to improve economic development, transport links and skills training.   All of these have been welcomed by all the local councils and by business leaders and the wider community.  

I’m very strongly of the view that there would be immense advantages for areas within north Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire to be part of those arrangements as well. Their economic prospects are fundamentally related to South Yorkshire. But, it is for them to decide.

Any devolution proposal is a compromise between competing perspectives and priorities. But disagreements should be healthy and constructive. In South Yorkshire, we are in real danger of making ‘the best’ the enemy of ‘the much better’ to the disadvantage of us all.

The Secretary of State suggests we go ahead with the devolution deal which has already been agreed for the four South Yorkshire districts. That appears eminently sensible. 

Everyone needs to recognise that there is no other deal on the table, nor is there a realistic possibility of any such deal being agreed in the immediate future.  The Minister says that, if at some stage in the future there is another deal offered for all or part of Yorkshire and some districts want to join that arrangement, they would be able to do so.   If they don’t, the existing arrangements would respect that  and carry on funding it.

This seems a win/win situation for everyone.   South Yorkshire gets a directly-elected mayor, and immediate additional money and powers.   If, in the long term, a different proposal is offered, districts can choose to opt for that without encumbrance. 

From a personal point of view, I do not believe an elected mayor for the whole of Yorkshire is feasible and will not work.  

But that is a debate for another day. Right now, we need to press ahead with the agreed deal for the benefit of the whole of South Yorkshire.

Not us, gov

The national and local media are carrying reports of anti-terrorism raids and arrests in three different areas of Sheffield and one in Chesterfield. Counter-terrorism police and MI5 officers say they have broken up a suspected Christmas bomb plot and describe the arrests as significant. We await developments.

Meanwhile, an important government adviser – Neil Basu, the senior coordinator for counter-terrorism – says that the reckless cuts to neighbourhood policing have been "a disaster for policing in this country". Both David Cameron and Theresa May were specifically advised of the inevitable outcome of their cuts in police budgets, but both chose to make them whilst cutting the tax bills for the wealthiest and those with the biggest incomes.

After a long period of year-on-year cuts in reported crimes, the Conservatives have yet again reversed the trends.  

• Violent crime is up by 19% and knife crime is up 26%.
• For the very first time last year, 2 million crimes went unsolved with more criminals getting off the hook than ever before. 

Well, if you cut police numbers by 20,000 and put counter-terrorism police under such strain that some cases are simply not being investigated, it’s little surprise that crimes aren’t getting solved. There are now fewer police officers per head than at any time on record.

It’s rather like a variation of the old Tommy Cooper joke, with the government minister asking “Doctor, each time I cut police numbers, the number of crimes go up. What shall I do?”, and the Doctor responds “Well stop cutting police numbers then.”

But, instead of listening to the answer and acting on it, the Prime Minister accuses the police service of 'crying wolf'.

Then, to reduce the real extent of the national cuts in police resources, the government has instructed Police and Crime Commissioners to mitigate the situation by increasing the local precept. Of course, this is at the very same time as other government ministers are telling councils to increase the council tax to mitigate the big cuts in national resources for adult social care.

So, the government is forcing through inflation-busting increases in council tax throughout the country to pay for its own negligence.

I’m just waiting for next year’s local election campaigns when we will undoubtedly hear Conservative Ministers and MPs attacking big increases in council tax, as though they had nothing at to do with it, and bear no responsibility for rising crime, or the failure to provide old people with the support and care they need.

Border controls

Debates about border issues are likely to dominate the Brexit debate in the near future. What will be the impact on the movement of people, goods and services across borders between the UK and the EU and the rest of the world?

Whether it’s a hard Brexit (no agreement with the EU on future arrangements) or a soft Brexit (in, or equivalence with, the Single Market), the independent, international researchers all believe there will be a negative affect on the UK economy. They simply disagree about the scale of the impact.

But, it’s some other border controls that I want to address in this article…those relating to taxi and private hire licensing.

As you travel locally, you will probably have been surprised to see taxis and private hire cars carrying Licence Plates carrying the names of councils in Lancashire, Merseyside, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. (I haven’s seen one from Cornwall yet, but I expect it’s just a matter of time.) You may even have ordered a private hire car to collect you from home, but only when dropped off at your destination, have you noticed the Licence Plate saying “Rossendale”.

What’s going on? Well, some Private Hire Drivers have been exploiting a loophole in the Licensing Regulations which allow them to register in one area and then operate in another. This known as cross-border operation.

Why would they do this? Well, although the legislative framework for taxis and private hire vehicles is the same throughout England (except for London which has different laws), the way in which the regulations are implemented vary from council to council. Historically, you could see this most obviously in relation to whether taxis were required to be purpose-designed (like Sheffield) or an ordinary car (like Barnsley).

The most obvious reason for doing this is that the policies and practices for licensing drivers are much tougher in some areas than in others. So, private hire drivers, who think or know that they wouldn’t get a licence in their own area, are getting themselves licensed in council areas where the rules and tests are less stringent.

We are all aware now of the role of some taxi drivers and private hire drivers in the child sexual abuse scandal in Rotherham and other areas. Rotherham has considerably tightened its licensing requirements. However, because of the legal loophole, Rotherham Council is completely unable to stop the Rotherham operations of drivers who wouldn’t get a licence in Rotherham but are getting a licence elsewhere.

That’s why I’m part of an all-party campaign to get the government to close this loophole quickly. Each day that passes without change, our lives are being risked unnecessarily.

Meanwhile, when you order a cab or private hire car, insist that you only want one whose driver is licensed in your council area.

Scrapping crime

Think back five years. Do you remember how the news was full of stories about metal theft?
Thefts increased dramatically after 2009, as metal prices rose significantly. Churches, schools, houses were being stripped of lead, copper and other metals. Our transport, telecommunications and energy sectors were being disabled. The damage being caused far outweighed the metal value.
It was clear that too many scrap metal merchants were either in league with the thieves or simply prepared to ignore the fact that metals being weighed in were clearly stolen.
Along with others, I argued that significant improvements would result from intervening in the supply chain. Eventually, the Scrap Metal Dealers Act was passed in 2013, with tough measures to crack down on the trade in stolen metal, including

• requiring a scrap metal dealer to hold a licence
• measures to close unlicensed sites
• requiring dealers to verify the identity and address of persons from whom they receive metal
• making it an offence for a dealer to purchase scrap metal for cash
• prescribing record-keeping requirements, and
• giving the police and councils the right to enter and inspect dealers’ premises.

Now, four years later, a report ¹ on the impact of the legislation has revealed that the number of thefts has dropped from nearly 62,000 in 2012/13 to around 16,000 in 2015/16. Police-recorded metal thefts in England and Wales fell to fewer than 13,000 in 2016/17.
At its peak, metal theft was estimated to cost the economy more than £220 million per year. The Act has undoubtedly saved the national economy millions of pounds.
The Act is an excellent example of how legislation can cut crime, save lives and benefit families, organisations, businesses and the national economy.
But, we shouldn’t be complacent. The government and local authorities should continue to identify what else can be done to cut the number of crimes and to bring perpetrators to justice.
¹ Review of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/666162/CCS207_CCS1217555036-1_Cm_9552_BASE_8-12_Web_Accessible__1_.pdf

The government is still not listening

Despite there being widespread support for the principles behind Universal Credit (UC), from the very outset – some 4 years ago – there have been serious concerns about some of the key design issues being pursued by the government.

Despite there being a unanimous motion in the House of Commons calling on the government to pause the implementation of UC, it has refused to delay until the necessary fixes are in place. However, it is interesting to note that the implementation in the Prime Minister’s and the Secretary of State’s areas have both been moved back in the programme!

So the government is pressing ahead with UC Full Service to be rolled out to 400,000 people over this winter, and nearly 7 million people over this parliament. I’m very clear that the government should pause until the fundamental flaws are fixed.

A key flaw is the initial payment, reduced from six weeks wait to five weeks at the recent Budget (but not to be implemented until next year). This waiting time – which has driven many into debt, arrears and evictions – must be cut significantly.

The government’s own research show that half of those with rent arrears under UC said that they had gone into arrears because of the delays after making a claim. CAB has found that 79% of those in debt on UC had priority debts such as rent or council tax, "putting them at greater risk of eviction, visits from bailiffs, being cut off from energy supplies and even prison.” 2 in 5 have no money to pay creditors as their essential living costs are more than their income. This is significantly higher than historically.

The outcome is also a crisis for all landlords (council, housing associations and private) and providing an unnecessary bonanza for debt-collectors, bailiffs and the courts.

Alternative payment arrangements must be offered to all recipients, including fortnightly payments. There must also be a restoration of the principle that ‘work always pays’ under the programme.

It’s time for the government to stop being pig-headed, to listen, to pause the programme, and to fix the flaws. It’s in all our interests.

Not all Landlords and Agents are Cowboys…

But there remain far too many operating in the private-rented housing sector.
The Private Rented Sector (PRS) has grown from 1 in 10 households in 2004 to 1 in 5 households in 2016 with the under-40s making up 70% of households.
More than four years ago, the all-party Communities and Local Government Committee (which I chair) reported on its investigation into the state of private-rented housing in England and Wales ¹ . We concluded:

• there had to be better, simpler regulation;
• all tenants and landlords needed to be fully aware of their rights and responsibilities;
• councils had to be given the flexibilities they require to enforce the law and raise standards, especially in relation to landlord licensing;
• councils should be able to recoup housing benefit and tenants the rent paid, when landlords have been convicted of letting substandard property;
• letting agents should be subject to the same controls as their counterparts in the sales sector. There needed to be a crackdown on the unreasonable and opaque fees charged not only by a few rogues but by many well-known high street agents.
• with the sector home to an increasing number of families, the market needs to offer longer tenancies to those who need them;
• we need action to speed up eviction processes where tenants breach tenancy agreements;
• a halt to the vicious circle whereby rents and housing benefit drive each other up; and
• action to finance new housing-to-let.

We followed up with information about the situation in Scotland where landlords and agents can’t charge letting fees. But the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government was complacent. In 2015, it said that the current legislation struck a fair balance between the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants, and that it had no plans to ban letting agent fees in England.
We have kept up the pressure on the government, particularly to act to deal with fees, substandard housing and rogue agents and landlords.
And, this month, we’ve launched a specific new inquiry ² into concerns about the ability of local councils to protect tenants by tackling bad landlords and their practices. We’ll also be investigating whether landlord licensing schemes are promoting higher quality accommodation and the effectiveness of complaint mechanism for tenants. Find out more and submit your evidence by 24^th November.
Meanwhile, last November, the government finally caved in and announced plans to ban letting agent fees paid by tenants. An official consultation ended in June. How much longer are tenants going to have to wait for the government to act?
¹ https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmcomloc/50/50.pdf

² http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/news-parliament-2017/private-rented-sector-inquiry-17-19/

Raising the Cap

Around six months ago, following an investigation, a joint all-party Communities and Local Government Committee (which I chair) and Work and Pensions Committee report made some important recommendations to the government about what it needed to do to find a long-term, sustainable funding mechanism that ensures quality, provides value for money, and which protects and boosts the supply of supported housing.
More than 700,000 people in the UK benefit from the support and supervision provided within the supported housing sector. The vast majority of provision is sheltered accommodation for older people, but this sector also includes housing for people with learning and physical disabilities, individuals at risk of homelessness, refuges for women and children at risk of domestic violence, and many other client groups.
In 2016, the Government had announced proposals, for a new funding model for supported housing, to come into effect in 2019. Our investigation concluded that the government’s proposals were unlikely to achieve these objectives. That’s why we made some clear recommendations about what the government should do.
In fact, the government’s plans have caused an outcry, with social housing providers asserting that the system would be bureaucratic and  unworkable ,and would put elderly and disabled people uncertain about whether they could afford to remain in their homes. It would be like another phase of Bedroom Tax.
Charities which work with and support elderly and disabled people have also waded into the debate. Caroline Abrahams, a director of Age UK, said: “The consequences for older people of pressing ahead would have been disastrous…”
As important for the long-term, the financial impact of the proposals would lead to a massive cut in the building of new supported accommodation and make many existing sheltered accommodation schemes and hostels unviable. The chaos caused by the plans has already halted 85% of planned new supported housing schemes.

The communities secretary, Sajid Javid, told me recently that our report had been “very helpful”. This week, there is a Parliamentary debate about the issues. So, this will be the opportunity to show that he listened and is going to act.

Solar Panels

There are now nearly 1 million solar panel installations in the UK.
Most of these have been installed over the last decade, with the majority under-pinned by financial support by a variety of government grants. The big impetus came in April 2010, when electricity suppliers became obliged to pay a feed-in tariff (also known as ‘clean energy cash-back’) to people who generated their own renewable electricity. 
As a result, a number of organisations started offering free solar panels to some households and businesses. The deal was that that the home-owner or business got free electricity and the organisation took the income from the surplus electricity produced and which was fed into the national grid.
A number of constituents came to see me saying “Free electricity sounds like a really good deal, doesn’t it? What’s the catch?” As a result, seven years ago, I posted an article ¹ advising that having solar panels on your home might be a really good thing, but you ought to ask a lot of questions – and get the answers – before proceeding.
The questions included:
• What are the guarantees about electricity production from this system?
• What happens if the kit stops working?
• Will it affect my mortgage?
• Do I need planning permission or building regulations approval?
• What happens if I want to sell my house but the buyer doesn’t want the kit?
• Who is responsible for any damage to neighbouring properties during installation?
• What happens if the organising company goes out of business?

As a result, I hope that local people did their homework and got the best deal they could, and avoided potential disasters, before signing on the dotted line.
Recently, the House of Commons’ Library published a very useful Q & A on Solar Panels ² .
There is still support available for installing renewable technologies such as solar panels through Feed-in tariffs. Such schemes boosts the UK’s renewable capacity and can reduce household consumption, and possibly bills, for homeowners with panels.
However, just as in 2010, there are lots of questions you need to ask before going ahead. This independent analysis will help you to decide if and when.
¹ 11 November 2010 http://www.clivebetts.com/

² http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8090

School Budgets

Children have gone back to school, but governors, teachers and parents are still no wiser about school budgets for the next three years.
The 2015 Conservative manifesto promise to maintain school budgets through to 2020 has already been broken. The Core Schools Budget has been falling since 2015, for the first time since before 1997. Analysis by the National Audit Office suggest that school budgets have been cut by some £2.7 billion in real terms since 2015.
The Conservative government is still planning to introduce a National Funding Formula for schools, which would redistribute the existing national schools budget. The redistribution would not only impact on differentials between areas throughout England, but also between schools in the same area.
When the then Deputy Prime Minister, having previously promised every school in his Sheffield Hallam constituency that they would be better resourced by a national funding formula, the former MP Nick Clegg went strangely quiet when this proved to be far from the case. Perhaps it’s part of the explanation for him being the former MP?
When the government’s latest plans were announced last year, they were met with opposition from many Conservative MPs when it emerged that many schools in their areas would lose out under the plans.
The consultation on the government’s plans closed a while ago now. The Secretary of State had said that the government would respond recently. But Mrs May’s government is looking so weak and wobbly that no-one will be surprised if there is another delay.
In the 2017 general election manifesto, Mrs May made a pledge that no school would lose funding as a result of the introduction of a new National Funding Formula. Then, in July, the Secretary of State for Education, Justine Greening, outlined an increase in the amount of funding each pupil would receive in 2018-19 and 2019-20, with additional increases for ‘underfunded schools’. But no details are available.
While the Secretary of State has outlined plans for an increase in funding of £1.3 billion across 2018-19 and 2019-20, this would do nothing to reverse the impact of existing cuts and schools across the country, so schools  will still be worse off than they were in 2015.
It has also become clear that these ‘additional resources’ for the schools’ budget are to be funded by a series of cuts to other education budgets, but Ms Greening has refused to say where and what the impact will be.
Unsurprisingly, she has continually ducked the basic question: Will there be any schools who will be worse off, in real terms, in 2020 than they are now?

I can tell you the answer: “Most of them.”

On your way, Mrs May

Shortly after the June general election, former Tory chancellor George Osborne described Theresa May as a ‘…dead woman walking and the only question is how long she remains on death row.’
Of course, this had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that May had sacked Osborne the day after she became the new Tory leader and Prime Minister. And, clearly, Osborne’s expectation that May would have to resign within weeks did not come to fruition.
However, as the Conservative Party Conference opens, all the talk is about who will be the next Tory leader. It is clear that Theresa May will not lead the Tories into the next general election. She was elected Tory leader because of who she was not, rather than who she is or what she represents.
Every day, she increasingly looks like a rabbit caught in the headlights. Her Brexit strategy – and I am being generous, because it is clear that she never had one – has been torn to pieces, as each and every assertion she and her other Cabinet Ministers have made about the terms of exit and ‘the new promised land’ have proved fatuous. She is not leading, but being blown from pillar to post by reality and by the UK’s deteriorating economic prospects.
It’s little wonder that, not too long ago, the international credit rating agencies cut the UK’s ratings because the likelihood of a hard Brexit and a squeeze on the public finances would damage the UK economy’s long-term health. And, now, the British Chambers of Commerce, representing businesses employing nearly six million people, have called for Mrs May and her Ministers to stop arguing about Brexit and to show "competence and coherence".
Within that context, it’s no surprise that the Conservatives are simply unable to make realistic responses to the key issues on the domestic agenda and are simply unable to set out sensible policies to address the growing crises, for example in housing, adult social care, and higher education (including tuition fees and maintenance allowances).
Quite disgracefully, the government won’t even ‘pause’ the timetable for the roll-out of Universal Credit to prevent thousands of low-income working families becoming embroiled in debt and the prospects of eviction.

On your way, Mrs May.