Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the impact of increases in inflation on local authority budgets.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

13. What recent assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of local authority funding.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

We recognise that councils have faced challenges since covid, which is one of the reasons why we allocated billions more in subsidies to local authorities in the financial year 2023-24. Discussions on public spending often require hard choices and trade-offs on many worthy intentions, but we hope that the additional billions allocated demonstrate the Government’s commitment to local authorities.

[Lee Rowley]

As I outlined, we have allocated additional funds to local authorities in this financial year. It is also a statement of fact that a number of local authorities in England have increased reserves as a result of covid. In the last financial year, additional grant funding of nearly £7 million has gone to the hon. Gentleman’s local council, Bury Council, for adult social care.

[Gareth Bacon]

Does my hon. Friend share my view that one way to support local government finance and to reward well-performing local authorities such as Bromley Council would be to introduce multi-year funding settlements? Will he commission a review into the merits of this, so that local authorities can better plan for the future?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a testament to the good work of Bromley Council that he can demonstrate this and talk about it with knowledge and experience. Multi-year financial settlements are something that we all aspire to. One of the reasons we brought forward the policy statement for financial year 2024-25 was to ensure greater clarity for councils at the end of this spending review, and we hope to be able to return to multi-year settlements in future Parliaments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dehenna Davison]

Part of the reason is to spread awareness about the new voter ID regulations. We have given that additional funding to the Electoral Commission, as well as additional funding of more than £4 million to local authorities, to promote those additional measures locally. We do not want to price anyone out of democracy, but we must protect its integrity at all costs.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in reminding the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) that it was Labour that first introduced voter identification, in Northern Ireland in 2003? The Electoral Commission was unable, in its 2021 public opinion tracker, to identify a single respondent who said that they were unable to vote.

[Dehenna Davison]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has made the case for why the measures are needed and will benefit our democracy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady will know that the Government are committed to levelling up areas throughout the country, including her constituency. Working with Homes England, we deliver significant investment funds to enable York and other partners to deliver homes and, more importantly, places that people will want to come to, in order to drive all-important economic growth and level up the country.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of statutory public consultations to local decision making.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

Meaningful engagement with local communities is essential to the improvement of public services, and our reforms in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will strengthen community engagement in planning and increase the opportunities for engagement through the development of digital services.

[Gareth Bacon]

I thank my hon. Friend and welcome her back to her well-deserved place on the Treasury Bench. Would she agree that the Mayor of London’s decision to go ahead with the expansion of the ultra low emission zone despite overwhelming opposition to the scheme expressed in a public consultation shows complete contempt for the people of outer London? Would she further agree that what appears to be a clear attempt by Transport for London to interfere with the outcome of the consultation in order to predetermine the result further undermines the democratic process?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for his vital question. I have seen the reports he refers to and I totally share his concerns about the consultation process led by the Mayor of London. Clearly these plans will have a significant impact on the communities that my hon. Friend represents so ably, which is why we must get to the bottom of what happened and hold the Mayor of London to account.

Management of the Economy and Ministerial Severance Payments

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. Like many others, I was astonished to see the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), recently give an interview in which he said that the only thing that the Government had got wrong was not to explain themselves properly. That is absolutely disgraceful. We are giving Government Members the chance to set this right today and to show whose side they are on. Are they on the side of the people they put in office, who walked away with ministerial severance payments and profited from the crisis that they caused, or are they on the side of working people, who are currently paying the price?

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I would be grateful if the hon. Lady could advise the House on how many Labour Ministers refused their severance payments in 2010.

[Lisa Nandy]

I will throw the question straight back to the hon. Member: how many times did we see, in 44 days, the former Prime Minister and Chancellor essentially use the security of people in this country as an experiment? They treated us as lab rats for their ideology. They crashed the economy and left working people to pay the price.

[Gareth Bacon]

rose—

[Lisa Nandy]

If the hon. Member wants to be the first on the Government Benches to apologise, I will certainly give him the opportunity.

[Gareth Bacon]

I note that the hon. Lady did not answer my question; will she do so now?

[Lisa Nandy]

Honestly, a bit of humility from Government Members would be in order. The situation is unprecedented. They have been in office for 12 years. You put two people in office, or rather, they put two people in office, Mr Speaker—I would never for a moment suggest that you would do such a thing—who were fundamentally unsuitable for the role. They supported them, backed them to the hilt and stood up from the Government Benches and supported every move that they made. They cheered as the mini-Budget was announced and they still do not have the humility to apologise for the damage that they have inflicted on families up and down the country. The Chancellor may have U-turned, the new Prime Minister may have admitted that mistakes were made, and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities may have apologised for the error of his party’s ways, but apologies do not cut it. Government Members allowed this to happen. Without them, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) would not have become Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Spelthorne would not have been Chancellor. Government Members let it happen; they cheered as the disastrous mini-Budget was commended to the House. They may be sorry now, although I am still waiting to hear it, but the damage has been done. Some 113,000 people were forced to re-mortgage between the mini-Budget and the present Chancellor’s belated U-turn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely, and I am sure the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) will be taking note and learning the lessons he needs to learn from that insight.

There is not expected to be a reduction in mortgage rates any time soon.

[Gareth Bacon]

It happened yesterday.

[Patricia Gibson]

Some estimates put additional mortgage costs at £5,100 a year, on average, by the end of 2024. I hear the chuntering from the hon. Gentleman about mortgage rates going down. He would do well to reflect on the fact that 73% of mortgage holders are worried about rate rises.

Alongside this, the UK Government are set to raise taxes. They will balance the cost of their own incompetence on the backs of those who are already struggling, and whose struggles have been made so much worse by a Government who could not find their backside with both hands. The number of Scots seeking mortgage help has nearly quadrupled, again as a result of this Government’s staggering incompetence. It is particularly galling for people in Scotland, the majority of whom roundly rejected this Government.

As if all this were not enough, inflation is soaring, rising to over 10% in September, a rate not seen since the early 1980s, outpacing normal earnings growth and expected to peak at 11%. Inflation is partly driven by sky-high energy costs, and the Government are already backtracking on the one thing they have done to bring down energy costs, with the expected bill rises early next year hammering households all over again—we could see bills of more than £4,000 in April. The shadow of recession is looming over the UK and threatens Scotland’s recovery from the pandemic, with the Scottish Government’s budget £1.7 billion lower due to the impact of inflation and the need to help households on which the UK Government have turned their back. This means that in Scotland budgets have had to be reprioritised across a range of areas to provide this much-needed support. Sadly, for the Labour party, when Wales’s budget is under pressure it is the fault of the UK Government because of how devolution works, but when the Scottish Government’s budget is under pressure Labour joins the Tories in condemning the SNP. That is why Labour is thrashing around in its death throes in Scotland, because standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories is not working for it. The people in Scotland are not fooled.

It is bad enough that households across the UK are struggling to balance budgets in the face of soaring inflation, rocketing energy bills and huge increases in mortgage costs, and it is bad enough that my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran are facing unprecedented financial pressures, but while they do they are watching the revolving door of Government jobs, which have been changing with breathtaking speed. The loss of a Cabinet post is compensated for with three months’ salary, and that applies even to those who were in post for only a few weeks. Sky News has reported that this ministerial churn has amounted to £709,000 in severance payments for former Ministers and Whips. A total of 71 Ministers are eligible for this pay as a result of the instability of this Government. In view of the financial stress our constituents are facing because of decisions made by this Government, they have a right to know who has taken these payments, which are due entirely as a result of the instability and incompetence of this Government. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us today, but I certainly will not hold my breath.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I rise to reject the arguments put forward by the Opposition. It is a matter of regret that Opposition day debates have abandoned any pretence of being a forensic probing of Government policy and have instead become nothing more than petty attempts for clickbait on social media.

[David Linden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Bacon]

No. I have great affection for the hon. Gentleman, but I am mindful of Mr Deputy Speaker’s warning about the time because I know that other Members wish to speak. If the hon. Gentleman makes a speech later, he can address my comments.

In George Orwell’s “1984”, people are required during the “Two Minutes Hate” to watch a film depicting enemies of the state and loudly proclaim their hatred for them. The Labour party appears to believe that “1984” was a guidebook and not a warning, because it seems regularly to covet the chance to fabricate similarly misleading narratives, such as that of MPs voting to allow sewage in rivers, which was patently untrue. The volume of hateful correspondence and even threats against Members of this House has risen in recent years. Anecdotally, I gather from colleagues that there seems to be a strong correlation between spikes in abusive messages and Opposition day debates. I will leave the Opposition to reflect on that and on their methods.

I note that in the motion there is no mention at all of the covid pandemic, which caused the greatest contraction of the UK’s economy for 300 years, or of the £400 billion the Government spent on protecting people through the pandemic. Nor is there any mention of the £37 billion of targeted support for those on lower incomes. Nor is there any mention of the war in Ukraine, which has directly led to massive increases in energy prices. The recovery from the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have led to inflationary pressures around the world, which have in turn led to interest rate rises around the world. Again, mysteriously, there is no mention at all of that in the Opposition’s motion.

On what is in the motion, I respectfully point out that ignoring the disastrous consequences of rising energy bills would have been economic mismanagement. Instead, the previous Prime Minister and Chancellor put together a supremely generous support package that safeguarded both businesses and households. The energy price guarantee caps the price per unit of electricity and gas, and was introduced to counteract the looming October price rise, saving each household £700 on average over the winter. Had that not occurred, many families would suffer exorbitant and potentially unaffordable costs.

Similarly, the energy bill relief scheme applies to non-domestic premises so that businesses do not go bust and incur massive job losses across the country, which would have caused destitution for thousands. The previous Prime Minister and Chancellor took action to prevent such situations from occurring in the wake of what are ultimately global surges in energy prices.

It is not ancient history, so let me point out that financially ruining the country and leaving a note that says, “There’s no money left”, as the Labour party did in 2010, is quite literally mismanaging the economy. Thanks to measures taken by this Government, as of yesterday, mortgage rates have begun to fall, and some lenders are offering five-year fixed-term rates at less than 5%.

Lastly, the calls to dock severance pay for departing Ministers are a relatively new phenomenon and an over-personalised cheap shot, which is typical of the Opposition. I am not aware that any Labour Minister was particularly concerned about the matter before certain quarters of the media began discussing it. Indeed, not accepting severance packages was certainly not high on the agenda of departing Labour Ministers throughout the Blair and Brown Administrations, and certainly not when they were booted out of office in 2010. That is underlined by the refusal of the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) to answer both the questions I asked during my earlier intervention. Yet again, it shows that the Opposition only follow and do not lead. The motion is simply game playing. It is entirely without merit and should not be supported.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne). I very much enjoyed his history lesson about when Gordon Brown came into power in 1997, when I was in primary 2. What relevance that has to today’s debate and the mortgage rates that are being experienced by my constituents, I am not quite sure. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) was unable to take my intervention. I think he is right to express some concern about the tone of Opposition day debates. One of the questions I was going to ask him was how he thinks the Scottish Conservatives conduct their Opposition day debates in the Scottish Parliament and whether he could tell the Chamber how different they are. He seems to be shrugging his shoulders, so I am not sure he is aware how the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) conducts himself in the Scottish Parliament; perhaps he is going to explain.

[Gareth Bacon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I must confess that I do not spend a lot of time watching the Scottish Parliament, because I am often here, so I cannot answer his question. I would be happy to have a drink with him, and we could discuss it then.

[David Linden]

That is very helpful, and over the course of that drink I will explain to the hon. Gentleman that the behaviour of his colleagues in the Scottish Conservative party during Opposition day debates is quite something. It reminds me of that biblical verse about removing the log from your eye before removing the speck from your neighbour’s.

There are two parts to the motion before the House. The first aspect of it is how interest rates are rising. A theme has been developed throughout the course of the debate that that is to do with what has happened in Ukraine and the covid pandemic. I would not dispute for a minute that what has happened in Ukraine has had an impact on the economy and that the global pandemic has had an impact on the economy. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), there is a third aspect that has also had an impact on the economy, and that is the nature of the Brexit that we took. I think most people and most respected economists would argue that Brexit has had an impact on the economy, and the cherry-picking—to use the Minister’s term—that the hon. Member for Sedgefield was indulging himself in, to try to ignore the fact that Brexit has had an impact on the economy, does a disservice to the debate.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

A friend of mine, while raising money for Shelter, the housing charity, ran the London marathon dressed as a house. In view of the quite serious injuries he sustained while doing that, it was perhaps not the wisest decision, but he was making a point. On the side of the house were painted the words “Home is everything”, and indeed it is, particularly for those who do not have one. Our country has a growing population, an ageing housing stock and a younger generation who have been almost entirely priced out of home ownership and for whom even renting a home costs far too high a proportion of their income. We need to build new homes.

The reason I am delighted to support the Second Reading of the Bill today, including its proposals for strengthening the planning system, is that it offers the best chance we have had for many years to improve what is an unacceptable and deeply flawed system. We currently have a serious problem. In 1995, two thirds of people between 18 and 34 were homeowners with a mortgage. The proportion is now just one in five. The Government observed in their February 2017 White Paper, “Fixing our broken housing market”, that the housing shortage was not a looming crisis, stating:

“We’re already living in it”

and noting that it was

“a problem that won’t solve itself”.

A gap has opened up between the places we want to see and those we actually create. Instead of beauty and a natural order in our new housing, we see a sterile sameness almost everywhere we look. The consequences are stark: most new housing is opposed most of the time, and in no other period in our history would housing be thought of as pollution. I understand why there is so much opposition. One witness in the housing review I did for the Prime Minister last year commented that

“the planning system rewards mediocrity”,

and people are entirely right to object to mediocrity.

We do not do enough to protect our beautiful countryside; nor do we insist on land reuse as a default starting point. Instead of the new housing that most people want, we have a soulless monoculture. The clunky and inconsistently applied methods for taxing land value uplift mean that we do not see the timely and right-sized improvements in physical and social infrastructure that we need, whether that is schools, doctors surgeries or strong sewerage systems. Most fundamentally of all, the wishes and interests of customers are barely considered. Indeed, for the very item on which customers spend the largest proportion of their incomes—their homes—they hold the least consumer power. That is intellectually indefensible.

There is a solution, and it involves creating the conditions in which customers are treated as if they matter the most, rather than for the most part scarcely mattering at all. More people want to build their own homes than to buy new ones. Research by the Home Builders Federation indicates that only 33% of people would consider buying a new build home, while research by the Nationwide Building Society indicates that between 53% and 61% of people would like to commission their own home at some point in their lives. For the under-34 age group, the figure is 80%.

If we genuinely want to see a solution to England’s housing problems, we must remove the risks around infrastructure—a proper public function—and create more certainty around planning so that the system is predictable, as should happen anyway in a rules-based system. We need permissioned and serviced plots to be readily available everywhere, and then allow consumers to make real choices. Moreover, there is clear evidence that consumers with free choices commission much greener houses with much lower running costs. Increasing consumer choice will therefore assist the Government in meeting their climate change commitments, which will not be met without significant changes in how we build houses. In conclusion, this Bill offers a real opportunity to deliver important changes and I am pleased to support it.

Planning Permissions and Unauthorised Developments

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Speculation about how long I might speak for is rife in the Tea Room. I have been informed by the Government Whips Office that I could take almost three hours with my speech. Tempting though that is, I reassure the House that I will not detain it for as long as that—although I acknowledge that that is a shame.

This debate is a follow-up to the ten-minute rule Bill that I introduced to the House last autumn, which sought to make unauthorised development an offence and to prohibit retrospective planning applications. Sadly, there was insufficient parliamentary time for the Bill to proceed, but the problems with planning enforcements remain.

What is the problem? Rogue developers regularly exploit loopholes in our planning system to build unauthorised developments without planning permission. Sadly, they are getting away with it. Under the current planning rules, development without permission is generally not a criminal offence, whereas failing to comply with enforcement action is.

Local authorities have a range of enforcement powers in their arsenals. Enforcement notices can be issued and, at the extreme end, require demolition and restoration. If they are upheld, there can be a fine of up to £20,000 on summary conviction or an unlimited fine on indictment under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Other measures, such as contravention or stop notices, can be used depending on the circumstances.

Elements of the Localism Act 2011 made changes to the planning system, notably by removing an applicant’s right to use two separate defences in a single case. In 2015, the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), outlined a policy to make intentional unauthorised development a material consideration for all applications, including retrospective ones.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill proposes a new offence for anyone who resides, or intends to reside, on land without permission and has caused, or is likely to cause, damage. The proposals are welcome, but the enforcement action I have outlined comes at a high cost to local authorities. It can take years to restore some sites because of the lengthy appeal processes involved. In any event, many rogue developers are eventually granted retrospective planning permission.

The planning portal goes as far as to state that in respect of breaches, local authorities

“often permit a retrospective application where planning permission has not been sought.”

Even when local authorities do not, the unauthorised development is often at such an advanced stage that the site is never fully restored. When such unauthorised developments have taken place on green-belt land or open land, they can lead to significant and permanent damage to areas that our planning system is supposed to protect.

That means a developer could show absolutely no regard for the legal process yet ultimately still be rewarded.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I did not intend to intervene but thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for allowing me to do so. Not just developers but private individuals take liberties in this matter, certainly in my constituency of Beckenham.

[Gareth Bacon]

My right hon. and gallant Friend is, of course, completely correct.

The consequence of the situation I have described is that many rogue developers bypass our planning system, gambling that enforcement action against them will be too slow and that, once built, their unauthorised development will be approved regardless. This is infuriating for the local residents who have to live alongside the developments. It is also frustrating for those who have played by the rules and sought planning permission themselves only to see others bypass the process.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. In Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, Staffordshire Waste Recycling Centre now has to apply for retrospective planning permission at its McGuinness scrap yard site, where the company is digging up an old landfill site, causing a terrible stink across the north Staffordshire area. Nearby, people are suffering because of Walley’s Quarry in the neighbouring constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme. Does my hon. Friend agree that not just certain developers but companies are taking liberties and creating distress for the surrounding residents?

[Gareth Bacon]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is precisely the sort of abuse of the system that I ask the Government to address. Such abuses have a material and long-lasting impact on local people. When people are seen to get away with it, that just encourages more of the same.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

I might, if my hon. Friend will allow me, seek to catch the Chair’s eye momentarily after his remarks. As he moves forward with this and as he, I hope, encourages the Government to take up his proposals, could he ensure that they include commercial operations? I have experience in my constituency; it is not just residential developers doing this, but commercial developers and businesses. I echo the points that have been made, but that must be a part of what he does.

[Gareth Bacon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the intervention and I agree entirely. The point is very well made and I can see the Minister on the Treasury Bench paying close attention. It is a subject that he and I have discussed on many occasions, and I look forward to hearing what he says in a moment.

The impact of all of this goes beyond local areas, as local authorities that pursue enforcement action against rogue developers have to spend significant sums of taxpayers’ cash on legal battles. When I introduced my Bill back in the autumn, I referred at length to a case in my constituency as an example of what can occur. That case is now subject to consideration by the courts, so I will not go into that detail again, save to make the observation that it has taken more than a year to get to this point and the end is still not in sight. However, it does not impact just my constituency—it is a national problem. Such incidents, as I have heard from my hon. Friends, are widespread.

In another example, in 2018, an unauthorised development was set up around Chelmsford on a Saturday morning, meaning that the planning enforcement team were able to visit the site only on the following Monday, by which time caravans, a digger and lorries carrying materials had all been brought on to the site in a pre-planned and co-ordinated attempt to build as much as possible so that it would become unviable for the council to dismantle the works. Neither of those incidents are easily resolvable. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) has spoken in this House about procedural battles on development sites in Guildford and Leatherhead that have lasted between 14 and 18 years. Green belt land has been acquired and built over without planning permission in both locations.

So what solutions might there be? When I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill, I stated that I believed that the solution lay in legislative change to move unauthorised developments without permission from being a civil offence to being a criminal offence. I made the argument that that would prevent rogue developers from appealing enforcement action and block retrospective planning permission automatically. I stated that any change should not aim to remove certain permitted development rights for private households. Nor should it attempt to single out encampments by certain specific communities. Any fair planning system should recognise that developments could unintentionally stray from the approved plans when constructed. In order to avoid the danger of people who have inadvertently breached planning regulations being criminalised, for example, in cases where an extension is slightly too large or where someone implemented something erroneously, believing that they had permitted development rights, the Bill I drafted distinguished between more minor, accidental planning permission breaches, and egregious breaches where someone repeatedly attempted to bypass the planning system, or where the breach occurred on protected land such as the green belt. In such instances, the rules need to be flexible enough to consider the circumstances of the breach. However, I believe this should be balanced against the need to ensure the system is strong enough to close the loophole that rogue developers are currently exploiting.

There are a range of potential solutions. As I have stated, my solution was to change the law to make unauthorised development a criminal offence. An alternative might be to reform the pre-existing enforcement provisions, for example, by rapidly speeding up the process by which planning enforcement can take place, and perhaps vastly increasing the level of fines applicable and limiting the timescales and grounds for appeal.

Whatever solution we opt for, the case for change is substantial. I have seen at first hand local authorities’ difficulties in deterring and stopping rogue developers from building without permission. I have seen the damage that that can cause. I have witnessed the frustration of local residents who find their local areas threatened and I have heard from local councillors and their officers about the long drawn-out, inefficient and very expensive processes they are obliged to follow in attempting to deal with the problem.

We can strengthen councils’ ability to act, protect the green belt and ensure that communities get their say on local developments by changing the law. When the planning Bill comes to the House, it will be a golden opportunity to take steps to protect local residents, stamp out these abuses of the planning process and right a very clear wrong. I urge the Government to pay heed to the issue. I very much look forward to hearing the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I am never knowingly under-lobbied by my hon. Friend, and I salute not only his indefatigability in campaigning on this issue, but the elasticity with which he has shoehorned it into this particular debate. Let me assure him that the matter he raises is important, and we do want to address his concerns effectively when we bring forward our planning reform. I am sure we will be talking further with him about those matters.

I have said that councils can step in to suspend works and enforcement notices can be served, but if a council needs to go nuclear, it can apply for a planning injunction via a court order that would restrain any actual or expected breach of planning controls. The outcome of this sort of process can lead to jail time, assets being seized and fines being handed down.

[Gareth Bacon]

The Minister is completely correct in what he has just outlined. The problem, however, is that this all takes time. It takes time to get a court appearance and it takes time for the injunction to be issued. Injunctions can very often be ignored, and further legal action has to take place to issue stop notices or other such action. All the while, development continues and the landscape continues to get scarred, local residents continue to get very anxious, and more time and money is being spent by the council. Would the Minister acknowledge that this is in fact part of the problem, and would he concede that this could be looked at in future, potentially as part of the planning Bill when it comes to the House?

[Christopher Pincher]

I appreciate and recognise my hon. Friend’s concern. We do want to ensure that the innocent are not caught up in a regime that pursues the guilty, but we also want to ensure that the system is more speedy and has much greater deterrent effects on those who attempt to gamble with the law, those who attempt to bend it and, indeed, those who choose to break it.

We all recognise that the reason why we need the important debate my hon. Friend has brought to the House today is that we believe—we genuinely believe—that there is more that we can do, and there is more that we shall do. As everyone in the House will appreciate, we are committed to improving our planning system and making it one that delivers better outcomes for people in all parts of the country. It is going to be the bedrock of one of our principal missions, which is to level up the United Kingdom and to help revive and regenerate those areas that have long felt forgotten by politicians of all stripes in Westminster. In our constituencies, however affluent they may be on the face of it, we all have areas of our constituency where there is deprivation and where residents feel left behind, and we have to fix that.

When it comes to pulling the handbrake on unauthorised developments in their areas, we want to make it even easier for local planning authorities to step in and make sure that retrospective planning permission is not exploited by those bent on gaming the system. Let me be clear: retrospective applications are only for individuals or businesses that have made a genuine mistake. As my hon. Friend alluded to, the enforcement process needs to work better. We make that happen by closing loopholes, and strengthening the existing powers and penalties at our disposal.

As we modernise our planning system in England, we plan to engage with communities and key stakeholders throughout the planning process. Our ambition is to ensure that the outdated system, which is essentially a relic of the post-war period, is now made fit for the 21st century, with proper digitisation of applications so that residents can easily see the proposed development in their area at the touch of their smartphone screen. As my hon. Friend and others have said, we have all seen and read about egregious examples of people bending the rules on retrospective planning applications. My hon. Friend mentioned the situation of the caravan park in Chelmsford, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned the situation faced by his constituents in Epsom. We see such challenges from individuals and commercial organisations up and down the country.

The simple idea behind retrospective applications is that they give people who have failed to seek planning permission prior to building a structure a fair chance to get the necessary approvals.

Building Safety Bill

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

I rise in support of the Bill, which introduces a number of crucial safeguards for residents while reforming the building safety system so that appropriate checks and balances are strengthened. Notably, the Bill brings forward recommendations from the Dame Judith Hackitt review, and it adds to the progress made by the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the greater clarification of rules concerning the use of EWS1 forms.

I very much welcome the written ministerial statement that was provided today about buildings under 18 metres no longer requiring an EWS1 form. Although it is probably slightly overdue, it is extremely welcome news, and it will go down very well with my constituents.

The Bill has many positive elements, which I would have liked to touch on. However, due to the time limit, I will have to skip over them, because I do have a couple of concerns about the Bill. The first relates to clause 124, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) first touched on.

I agree with the principle that landlords must take cost recovery avenues to avoid passing on costs directly to leaseholders, given, of course, that leaseholders bear absolutely no responsibility for cladding being put on their buildings in the first place. However, there is currently no legal obligation on landlords to seek cost recovery for remediation before passing the costs on to leaseholders. Although the Bill acknowledges that, it is insufficiently clear as to any potential remedy. Clause 124 stipulates that the landlord must seek other cost recovery avenues before passing those costs on. What happens if they are unable to obtain such funding? What happens to the leaseholders then? What protections will be in place for them? The Bill does not clarify that sufficiently.

The London Fire Brigade has highlighted a further issue, which has potentially huge significance. Developers often open a subsidiary company when they are building new developments or refurbishing existing projects. When those projects are complete, standard practice is for the subsidiary company to be closed down by the parent, and the parent company rarely retains legal liability for the premises that have been remediated. There is a danger that that will leave leaseholders liable for all costs resulting from negligent work by developers and their contractors.

Having said that, I believe that those issues can be addressed as the Bill proceeds through the House. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will be able to provide clarity on them in his closing remarks today. In totality, I believe that the Bill takes great strides in improving building safety, and I will be supporting its Second Reading this evening, albeit with the hope that it may be strengthened as it proceeds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for his report. We will consider it carefully, as we always do, and I am pleased that he has, with some caveats, been so very supportive of our proposals. He asks about the way in which we can better democratise our planning system. The fact is that 3% of all planning applications are engaged with by the local community, yet 90% of planning applications go through, so only a small number of people are engaging with the planning process and the overwhelming number of plans go through anyway. I do not think that that is particularly engaged or democratic, and we are seeking to bring forward the democratic element of plan making so that local people can have a real and meaningful place and decision-making role in what happens in their communities.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

If he will publish the Government’s plans for environmental protections in the development process.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

The planning for the future consultation closed in October 2020, and it generated an enormous amount of interest, with 44,000 responses. We are analysing those responses and will respond to the consultation in due course. We are committed to planning reforms that are intended to provide better protection for environmental assets. I have worked closely with my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary as well as with my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) on the measures in the Environment Bill, and the planning reforms complement and reflect these.

[Gareth Bacon]

The Government will shortly be bringing forward their planning Bill, which I recognise is needed to bring forward much needed new housing and infrastructure. My Orpington constituency is two-thirds rural, so what guarantees can my right hon. Friend give me and my constituents that green-belt and greenfield land will be protected from inappropriate development?

[Christopher Pincher]

We are committed not only to protecting the green belt but to enhancing it, and those protections will remain in force when we bring in planning reforms. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that we will not be taking the advice of the Select Committee, which suggested that we should undertake a wholesale reform of the green belt. We have committed to protect it, and so we shall, because only in exceptional circumstances may a local authority alter a green-belt boundary, using its local plan and consulting local people on where essential new housing should go, and it needs to show real evidence that it has examined all other reasonable options before proposing to release the green belt. We are committed to the green belt, and we will fight for it.

Public Landmarks Review

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Britain is under attack—not in a physical sense, but in a philosophical, ideological and historical sense. Our heritage is under direct assault. There are those who seek to call the very sense of what it is to be British today into question. Attempts are being made to rewrite our history, indoctrinate our children with anti-British propaganda and impose an alternative worldview.

Our institutions have been undermined. Attempts have been made to sully the reputations of towering figures from British history because the views of their time may not conform to today’s values. The rise of the power, reach and influence of social media in recent years has been highly influential, increasing the pace and spread of what is a broadly left-wing, anti-British, anti-western and anti-capitalist rhetoric. A domino phenomenon is being witnessed as a succession of national institutions and organisations accept, seemingly without question or critical analysis, the new orthodoxy.

The new orthodoxy has become colloquially known as the woke perspective. In modern day Britain, the woke viewpoint includes attacking the historical concept of Britain by reinterpreting British history in a slanted and decontextualised manner, using modern viewpoints and value judgments. In woke eyes, the British empire is no longer seen as a modernising, civilising force that spread trade, wealth and the rule of law around the globe. Instead, it is viewed as a racist, colonialist, oppressive force than invaded sovereign foreign countries, plundered them and enslaved people en masse.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Tom Pursglove.)

[Gareth Bacon]

Great British heroes such as Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson and Sir Winston Churchill, who were until comparatively recently almost universally regarded in a highly favourable light, now have their reputations besmirched.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House. When we record greatness, we celebrate men and women who are inherently imperfect. When I look at Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square, I honour what Churchill represented: duty, fortitude and an unwavering belief that when we British stood together, we could not be defeated. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these are worthy of celebration and honour today, and that by tearing them down we make no statement other than that we will not acknowledge our past, which makes me fear for our future?

[Gareth Bacon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I agree with him unreservedly. I would also like to acknowledge the honour of being intervened on by him. I gather this is a rite of passage for any Member of Parliament: you are not really a Member of Parliament until you have been intervened upon by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), so I am very grateful to him.

Britain, a small country on the north-western edge of the European continent that led the world in the fields of science, industry, democracy, trade, law, the arts and much more besides, and that stood and fought, often for long periods alone, for freedom against European tyranny in the shape of Napoleon and Nazism and successfully opposed Soviet Communism, is reinterpreted in the woke perspective solely as a slave-owning force of oppression and evil. The slanted views of the woke perspective focus firmly on the past. Its preoccupation is with rewriting that past in order to alter the present. By rewriting Britain’s long and varied history to focus solely on slavery, without any acknowledgement of Britain’s huge role in stamping it out, the woke perspective seeks historical justification for its ideological belief that modern Britain is inherently racist, with an entirely shameful past.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that woke activists are of course entitled to their views, and to express them, but that they are not entitled to impose those views as though they were in any way authoritative or unchallengeable? Does he agree that that is an arrogant and divisive standpoint to take?

[Gareth Bacon]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In any mature democracy, the right to hold alternative views and to express them is unchallengeable. However, what I do not think is unchallengeable is an attempt to stamp out contrary views, to cancel people, to bully and intimidate them and to make them fear for their safety simply because they have an alternative view.

This woke view of our nation’s history fails to recognise the open, tolerant and global Britain that is a force for good in the world—a champion of democracy, equality, peace and prosperity that was forged in the empire. Its mission is to destroy the accepted sense of Britain in order to impose a countervailing ideological perspective, because if it delegitimises the one, it is possible to legitimise the other. Of course, there is no better way to achieve this than to topple the towering heroes on which British history balances. For example, left-wing efforts to paint Churchill as a racist are an attempt to warp our country’s memory of the second world war.

It is against this backdrop that we see a sudden push from some quarters to question the legitimacy of the statues, monuments and even the road names of certain parts of our country. Chief among them, of course, is London. Our capital city has always been the political, governmental, financial and cultural centre of our country. It therefore has many historic monuments. Unfortunately for London, it also has a Mayor who has never wasted a moment in ingratiating himself with woke activists.

Within days of the protests in central London last summer, Sadiq Khan announced that he would create a commission for diversity in the public realm. Staggeringly, for a man who constantly pleads poverty when it comes to carrying out his core functions of building houses, running the transport system or keeping people safe on the streets, Sadiq Khan has set aside £1.1 million of taxpayers’ money for this exercise. He claims that the commission is about putting up more monuments of historically significant black and ethnic minority figures and to aid public understanding. This indeed is a worthy aim, but he rather let the cat out of the bag when asked last June whether he thought the commission would lead to statues being removed, and he said, “I hope so.”

The Mayor’s desire to rewrite history is underlined in the application pack for people aspiring to be on the commission. In it, the Mayor states:

“Our statues, street names, memorials and buildings have left a distorted view of the past.”

He goes on to call for the commission to:

“Further the discussion into what legacies should be celebrated.”

The terms of reference for the commission stated that there would be:

“A fair and transparent recruitment process resulting in a group of 15 Commission Members in addition to the two Co-Chairs with broad-ranging knowledge, expertise and lived experience relevant to the work of the Commission.”

Anyone who takes that at face value is either spectacularly naive or they have not been following the development of Sadiq Khan’s mayoralty.

In February, the membership of the commission was announced, and it is fair to say that it removed any pretence that it would produce an impartial and objective historical world view. One of the commissioners has already been forced to resign for antisemitic comments he made in the past. Of the remaining commissioners, one has said:

“The UK is evil. It is the common denominator in atrocities across the world and is responsible for white supremacy everywhere.”

Another said:

“Boris Johnson is an out and out complete”—

he then uses an obscene four-letter word beginning with c —“who is overtly racist.” He goes on to express support for defunding the police. A third claimed last year that:

“The concept of race was created by white people in order to give them power over non-white people.”

When setting this commission up, the Mayor claimed:

“The membership will be representative of London’s diversity.”

Diversity of what? Certainly not diversity of thought or of political opinion. These people are hand-picked, hard-left political activists. Sadiq Khan is playing an irresponsible and dangerous game by establishing a new commission to tear down London’s landmarks. The Mayor expects this to be an easy, virtue-signalling public relations win, but his decision has created division and inflamed tensions in the capital. A recent poll conducted by YouGov found that 42% of Londoners oppose the plans, compared with 38% who are in favour of them.

An e-petition calling for the protection of all historical statues and monuments has attracted more than 35,000 signatures of support. Shaun Bailey, Mr Khan’s Conservative opponent in the forthcoming London mayoral election, commented:

“The Mayor has driven wedges between communities…With his diversity commission, he’s trying to re-write British history, but he does not have the expertise or the authority to do this.”

He is completely correct.

One of my constituents wrote to me, and I will quote what he said at length. He said:

“I originated from Pakistan and my late Father was born in India. I am very concerned about how the identity politics and cancel culture is being promoted. I fully support those who have raised their concerns about Mr Khan’s initiative about changing the names of London roads and dismantling historic statues and monuments.

There are no other nations or countries which will wipe out or bring disrepute to their empires or Kingdoms and will actively degrade their heroes. History is history and let it not punish our present!”

He continues:

“If we study the…British Empire, the British left a huge legacy throughout its vast empire. The British made a chain of Universities and medical colleges, the world’s best irrigation system, it introduced a new structure of administration and introduced democracy in the Subcontinent. It built modern infrastructure including railway tracks, bridges and railway stations. Moreover Britain has welcomed people from North, South, East and West and we must teach patriotism in our schools.”

Whether we like it or not, there are many very good, some bad and a few ugly elements in Britain’s past, and it is a complicated picture, filled with imperfect heroes. The notion that historical figures should be judged by today’s standards will eliminate every British hero this country holds dear. Will Sadiq Khan topple Churchill for his support for the British empire? Will Admiral Nelson fall for living in a time when slavery existed? Will Sir Francis Drake, Oliver Cromwell, King James II, Lord Kitchener and William Gladstone be erased, and their contributions to British history forgotten, because they were flawed characters? Where do we draw the line? Should Gandhi’s statue be removed because he believed Indians were racially superior to Africans? Will Karl Marx’s tomb be destroyed because of his deeply held antisemitism? Should Egypt’s pyramids and Rome’s colosseum fall because they were built by slaves and those civilisations profited from that abhorrent trade?

This is why Sadiq Khan was wrong to jump on this latest virtue-signalling bandwagon. His decision to tear down statues in London risks encouraging left-wing mobs to topple statues themselves and far-right mobs to take to the streets to protect them. The events of last summer are proof of that. Instead of posturing in this way, the Mayor should take a long, hard look at his record of failure, which has left communities behind in London. After five years at the helm of City Hall, it is time he took his fair share of responsibility for the challenges and inequities that exist in London today. On his watch: violent crime soared to record levels and murder reached an 11-year high; only 17,000 affordable homes have been completed in five years; 22 major transport upgrades that could regenerate communities have either been delayed or cancelled; and Crossrail is three years late and £4 billion over budget, and Transport for London has lost £2 billion in fares income it would otherwise have accumulated.

The sad truth is that London is saddled with a Mayor who is not especially interested in the core functions of his role. There is no virtue he will not signal, no passing bandwagon he will not jump on and no gallery he will not play to in his never-ending attempt to ingratiate himself with the latest trend on Twitter. Pandering to woke activists in this way is deeply disturbing. These moves are illegitimate and dangerous. They will do nothing for inclusiveness. Instead, they will foster bitterness and resentment on all sides. We must not go down this route. If the Mayor of London insists on pushing ahead with this deeply divisive, virtue-signalling exercise, the Government should step up to protect our national heritage and explicitly strip him of the power to dismantle it.

Unsafe Cladding: Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders

Gareth Bacon Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) [V]]

Many happy returns, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This is an extremely important and highly complex issue, and it is important to note at the outset what the Government have done so far. A £1.6 billion building safety fund has been provided to remove cladding from residential buildings 18 metres and over, and there is now a requirement for the installation of sprinkler systems in all new blocks of high-rises over 11 metres. The MHCLG already publishes monthly data on all identified high-rise residential and publicly owned buildings where remediation works have taken place or are in progress. The EWS1 form process has been tidied up to a degree, with agreement reached with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to confirm that buildings with no cladding do not require a form. In addition, funding has been provided to train assessors to speed up the valuation process, leading within six months to 2,000 additional assessors to help unlock the housing market. Those things are a step in the right direction, but they are not the end of the journey, as the Government have made clear.

Much of the Government action so far has been aimed, understandably, at buildings above 18 metres in height. However, up and down the country, including in my own constituency of Orpington, leaseholders are living in buildings under 18 metres that have cladding on them. Under the current EWS1 process, people living in such properties are faced with the nightmare scenario that they cannot remortgage, they cannot move home because lenders will not finance mortgages for would-be buyers, and Government support for remediation is aimed at taller buildings.

In my constituency, I have been contacted by constituents living in Cray View Close, the Village Hall flats, and the flats above Orpington’s Tesco. As I have said before in this House, my constituents are trapped and unable to move on with their lives. Indeed, as a result of fixed-term mortgages coming to an end, I note that at least one of my constituents has been moved on to a higher tariff due to the presence of cladding, even though the building concerned is not a high-rise block. In addition, the freeholder at Cray View Close is a local housing association, and it has confirmed in writing to several of my constituents that, all things being equal, costs for future remedial work will fall on the leaseholders. That is devastating news for my constituents, so I warmly welcome the previous comments of my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister that leaseholders should not have to worry about the cost of fixing historical safety defects that they did not cause.

RICS is due to publish the final EWS1 guidance at some point later this month, and it is vital that it gives much greater certainty for lenders. It needs to state very clearly whether an EWS1 form is required for buildings under 18 metres, and if one is, the Government will need to be very clear in the forthcoming building safety Bill about how leaseholders will be protected. It is crucial that the Government get this right and get it right first time.