Oral Answers to Questions

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Young]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for his constituents. I am happy to meet him to discuss the delays as soon as we can. The project adjustment process is available to the council if it needs to use it.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

T9. In 2010, total wealth per head in the north of England was 16% lower than in the rest of England. Last week, the Institute for Public Policy Research released a report that estimated that by 2030, this gap will have grown to 21%. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this Government’s policies have achieved levelling up?

Oral Answers to Questions

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

T4. According to the Government’s own reports, the Prime Minister’s Richmondshire local authority is the 67th least deprived local authority in the country, while Bradford is the 21st most deprived. Was levelling up at the heart of the Government’s decision to approve roughly £20 million of funding for Richmondshire and no funding for my constituency of Bradford South?

[Michael Gove]

That money went towards ensuring that service families get the accommodation and support they deserve. If Labour wants to be taken seriously as a patriotic party, it should stop talking down our armed forces and ensure that they receive the money they deserve.

Levelling-up Fund Round 2

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I know that my hon. Friend campaigns very hard for her constituency in this and other areas. Of course we can confirm that we will be able to work with her local authority to ensure that a successful bid can be put forward.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the British people have an innate sense of fair play? Independent analysis of the largest cities and towns in England identified Bradford as the UK’s No. 1 levelling-up opportunity. None of the four Bradford bids was successful in this round. Does the Minister believe that the people of Bradford will think that that is a fair outcome, or that the process stinks?

[Lucy Frazer]

As I mentioned earlier, as someone who grew up in Leeds, I understand how important that area is and how much more we can do. As I have also mentioned, we had £8 billion and were only able to allocate £2.1 billion in this round, but further funds are available, and round 3 will take place in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien]

I know that this is something that my right hon. Friend has been campaigning very hard for. The next round of the levelling-up fund will be open in spring next year, and I am sure that, with her help, her local councils will be able to develop a strong bid for that important bridge.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the implications for his polices on levelling up of the integrated rail plan.

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

As the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), pointed out in response to the previous question, levelling up involves every Department working in a co-ordinated fashion to advance a series of policies that spread prosperity more equally across the country. The £96 billion integrated rail plan was the single largest rail investment ever made by a UK Government.

[Judith Cummins]

There was broad agreement around Lord Heseltine’s 2012 report that investment in rail infrastructure is central to a levelling-up agenda. The integrated rail plan really only delivers an upgrade to the existing lines, axing the eastern leg of High Speed 2 and the new high-speed Northern Powerhouse Rail line. How can the Secretary of State do his job now that the integrated rail plan has derailed progress in the north? With less than three weeks of parliamentary time left in 2021, when will he publish his long-promised levelling-up White Paper, which is due this year?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes two very good points. On the first, if we look at the integrated rail plan, we can see that there are significant benefits for communities across the north of England. Indeed, travel time between Leeds and Bradford is reduced from, in some cases, just over 20 minutes to 12 minutes. That is a real, material benefit for citizens of both great cities. It is also the case that the potential for further work in making sure that we can have a more effective mass transit system in West Yorkshire is inherent in the approach that was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary. More broadly, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her anxiety to see the broader set of plans that we are keen to bring forward shared with the House, and we will do so at the earliest possible opportunity.

Budget Resolutions

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in today’s Budget debate in disappointment, because I have campaigned to bring Northern Powerhouse Rail to Bradford city centre for six years. I have raised the issue of Northern Powerhouse Rail many times in this place, in many Budget debates—perhaps even as many times as the Government have made their many announcements on it. Among the avalanche of leaks from the Treasury, I was really hoping to hear some positive messages about Northern Powerhouse Rail, but there was nothing. Then I hoped that the Chancellor would pull something out of the hat on Budget day, but again—nothing. I trust that if the Government had positive news for Bradford, they would not keep it secret—they would not be quite so shy or blushing about it—so I can only conclude that the rumours are correct, and that there is to be a drastic scaling back of Northern Powerhouse Rail, with no city centre stop in Bradford.

My constituents got little from the Budget, or the spending review. We still have no firm date for when the integrated rail plan will be published. Despite the Government’s promises, they seem happy that transport spending is set to continue to be disproportionately centred on London and south-east England. I have no doubt that more promises will come forward, but I fear that we will be asked to settle for just an upgrade of the existing train line, which will be rebadged as Northern Powerhouse Rail—more smoke, and more mirrors. Bradford needs and deserves more than that.

I am asking for fairness in funding, and a rebalancing to ensure that the economies of the north are no longer held back by under-investment. Specifically, we need a trans-Pennine route upgrade; we need High Speed 2’s eastern leg in the north; and we need a new Northern Powerhouse Rail line, with a city centre stop in Bradford. Those are not either/or options, because Bradford matters. The north matters. It is time for the Government to stop the endless rhetoric of levelling up, and to deliver some real infrastructure investment in the north.

What is more, Northern Powerhouse Rail would support carbon-free, sustainable travel, and would contribute to the next era of carbon goals, not just for northern cities, but for the whole UK. One of the biggest city-to-city journeys to work in the country is between Bradford and Leeds, and it is done mostly by car. At scale, Northern Powerhouse Rail would support a 400% increase in rail travel, and it would take 64,000 car trips per day off the road.

Time and again in this House, I have raised the north-south economic imbalance, and time and again Ministers have responded with warm words, but nothing concrete. Let us have no more shallow promises. It is time to deliver.

Building Safety Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, there are also many buildings over 18 metres that do not have cladding and are still facing the issues of fire remediation works, some of which may not be necessary. I am not clear whose job it is to decide whether they are necessary, and therefore whether a building can be mortgageable and insurable once again and people can move on with their lives. I am still not sure of that and I still do not feel that the Government are really providing the leadership and intervention that is necessary.

There is huge strength of feeling on these issues, as we can see from the number of Members wanting to speak in this debate. The toll of this crisis is immeasurable. Innocent homeowners want us to work together, and I will work with anyone to protect them from these costs. I am not interested in party political point-scoring, as it happens, but the Government have to step up on these issues.

Returning to the Hackitt test, her ultimate test of this new framework is the rebuilding of public confidence in the system. She says that the people who matter most in all this are the residents of these buildings. The honest truth is that, through the omission of cast-iron protections for today’s leaseholders, this test will not be met. It is not enough to simply will the ends; the means need real determination and focus too. We will work with all sides to protect leaseholders and meet the Hackitt test.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Sir Peter Bottomley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

There are major issues about the independence of building control not just on the highest-rise buildings but right throughout the building industry. The Select Committee report drew attention to that.

On product testing, we await the Government’s proposals. Hackitt identified that the product testing regime is broken and needs fixing, and the Committee stands by its view that if a product that has gone to testing and failed a test comes commercially to the market, that information should be made available publicly. That is important information. The Government rejected that recommendation, but I hope they might consider it further.

It is very difficult to make comprehensive sense of the statement published today. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept an invitation to come to the Select Committee after the summer recess and discuss the matter with us in more detail. Whatever the statement says, it still leaves out buildings over 18 metres that have defects that are not just about cladding. Even when cladding defects have been put right, people are facing bills of £50,000 that they cannot afford. Where is the help for those leaseholders? It is not anywhere in the Bill.

I turn to buildings between 11 and 18 metres. I do not understand how the Secretary of State can say that systemic defects were not found in those buildings. Where does cladding fit into that? Will the removal of combustible cladding from buildings between 11 and 18 metres no longer be required? If it is still required, who will pay for it? The Government floated the idea of a loan scheme, but there is no reference to that in the Bill. Has the loan scheme been ditched? We need clarification on these important issues because leaseholders need certainty that they are not going to have to face these bills.

There are important issues in the Bill. It is generally to be welcomed. There are still issues that we want the Government to go further on, but the explanation in this statement of who is going to pay for some of the costs that the building safety fund does not cover is still an essential matter that the Government need to think again about.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Sir Mike Penning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

As others have said, the Bill represents progress in implementing the recommendations of the Hackitt review, but it will not come into effect until a full five years after the Grenfell tragedy. In those five years, hundreds of thousands of leaseholders have lived their lives under the fear of fire, under a threat to their own personal safety and under the fear of being trapped in unsellable, non-mortgageable properties and bearing costs that they are completely unable to fund. In a number of cases, those costs exceed the value of the property when they purchased it.

What we know—we will obviously be digesting the contents of the written statement as well—is that the Bill will not do enough to overcome the damage that has been done to leaseholders or to compensate them for the costs they have already borne and will continue to bear, and that further amendments will be essential before the Bill passes into law. I was particularly struck, during the Secretary of State’s opening speech, that the waking watch has now been dismissed, in many cases, as a scam and as being unnecessary. It is a bit rich of the Government to say that, when the waking watch has been the principal means of protection that has been relied on to ensure the safety of those living in high-rise properties. People who have been paying for such waking watches over these last years will listen with amazement to what the Government are now saying and to their glib dismissal of a scheme that they themselves have been relying on.

Even five years after Grenfell, there is still clear evidence that the necessary culture changes in the building industry have not taken place. As the London Fire Brigade says, there are still developers who are gaming the system and cutting corners, and there is clearly still not a level playing field to protect the interests of the only people—the tenants and the leaseholders—who are entirely blameless in this.

I want to make a particular point that does not get covered enough. Although the fire safety and building safety problems have been a catastrophe in terms of their personal impact on leaseholders, there are also significant implications for the social housing sector. Housing associations have faced remediation costs of £10 billion, and the consequence of that is a dramatic fall in the house building programme and in the investment that is necessary to deal with other safety, repair and maintenance issues in that sector. Those tenants and those people in housing need should not also be the victims of a crisis that they had no part in, and the social housing sector must be fully compensated for its actual costs in the months and years to come.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Paul Maynard, by video link.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) [V]]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and welcome to the hot seat.

I want to highlight just one aspect of building safety that I do not believe has been covered either in the Bill or in the debate so far today. Safety on stairs might seem to be rather a niche issue compared with the many issues around fire safety that we are discussing, but it has to be more than just a case of “watch where you’re going”. As the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has discovered, falling on stairs is a significant cause of death, stretching into many hundreds per year. For every one hospital admission caused by a burn, there are 235 caused by falls.

The impact of these falls is felt disproportionately by older people, and even when a fall is not fatal, it is often the first stage of a persistent decline. Falls create fear, they impact on confidence and wellbeing, and they lead to people being moved out of their own homes and into care homes, in many cases never to return. I represent a predominantly elderly constituency and I am in no doubt about the importance of stair safety to maintaining independence in the home for as long as possible, but I am also someone with cerebral palsy, and I know that it is not just the elderly but people like me who have to be exceedingly careful when navigating staircases.

There is an existing industry standard, British standard 5395-1, regarding how stairs should be constructed, including rules on the dimensions of stairs and handrails. Stairs built to the British Standard lead to 60% fewer falls. Although it has been the standard since 2010, it has not, as yet, been enshrined in law, and is therefore often not used by builders. I have written to the building safety Minister asking for the Bill to include a mandate for the British standard to be applied in all new build homes, and I plan to propose such an amendment should he not give me sufficient satisfaction.

It is worth noting that this cause is backed by both private and social housing providers. It will create a level playing field in house building, but, more importantly, it will massively reduce the number of falls on stairs in the future, easing the burden on A&E and ambulances, and saving many families from unnecessary and premature tragedy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Meg Hillier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]]

I am not sure what is worse for leaseholders: the fact that they are in constant fear because their homes are not safe, the fact that they cannot afford to make them safe and are being harassed by greedy managing agents, or the fact that they are trapped in their flats without any easy option to sell and move on with their lives. Today’s statement and the Bill do not fundamentally change that for all the reasons the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), set out in his brief but excellent speech.

During the passage of the Fire Safety Bill, Ministers promised that these issues would be addressed in the Building Safety Bill. Lord Greenhalgh said:

“it is unacceptable for leaseholders to have to worry about costs of fixing historic safety defects in their buildings that they did not cause”

and that

“building owners are responsible for ensuring the safety of residents”,

and he said that they should

“protect leaseholders from the costs of remediating historic building defects.”

I do not know what the correct term in Parliament is for someone who make promises that they do not keep, but I know what they call them on the streets of Brent North: they call them a Government Minister.

Extending the scope and duration of the Defective Premises Act 1972 in the Building Safety Bill shows that the Government do not understand the extent of the problem. I ask the Minister to explain to my constituents who live in the Wembley Central development how it will help them. The original developer of their homes, St Modwen, has washed its hands of these defective properties. It sold them to an offshore company in Jersey in 2018, following the introduction of the new building regulations. It was in partnership with Sowcrest, which is now in a very convenient liquidation. So who exactly does the Minister think my constituents can chase here? What are the Government prepared to do about buildings with obscure corporate ownership?

I first contacted St Modwen in 2017, immediately after the Grenfell tragedy. It repeatedly assured me that the buildings were safe and in 2018 confirmed in writing that no fire safety defects had been identified. I am now told that the cladding on this building is the same as that used in Grenfell Tower and the fire safety report has identified fire stopping defects throughout the construction process. In May this year, St Modwen agreed to a takeover bid of £1.2 billion from Blackstone. Can the Minister tell me how this Bill will make them accountable for their actions? It was not the leaseholders who decided to use flammable cladding or to leave out fire stopping in voids or cut corners—developers made those decisions. My constituents have neither the deep pockets nor the legal expertise to fight these corporate chameleons, who start off in London and end up in Jersey as a different company. This Bill shows that the Government either do not understand or do not care. The companies can afford lengthy litigation; leaseholders cannot.

Finally, the Minister must explain why there is so little progress on the building safety fund. I wrote to St Modwen on 23 June. I still await a response. I have written to Fidum, the new managing agent for the new owners. I asked it about its application to the building safety fund for the removal of unsafe cladding. I have received no response, but Fidum now tells residents that it missed the closing date of 30 June for the second application because it is still waiting to have eligibility—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Joy Morrissey.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement that the EWS1 forms should not be required for buildings below 18 metres; lenders were insisting on EWS1 forms, despite buildings not meeting the proper criteria in the new guidance, so it is a welcome announcement. I also welcome the announcements in the written statement on working towards market correction with regard to the total risk aversion that we are seeing in the market from lenders and surveyors, and the absolute stagnation in the market.

However, I echo the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and by the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), regarding leaseholders and the issue of clause 124. I would like to see much greater levels of legislation to support leaseholders. I am speaking on behalf not just of the leaseholders, but of the parents of leaseholders in my constituency—parents in Beaconsfield, Marlow, Flackwell Heath and Iver who have given their life savings to help support their child to buy their first home, usually in London. The children of my constituents are now stuck in homes that they cannot afford to move out of because of the spiralling cost of insurance and the cost to the leaseholder that has been incurred because of the building safety regulations.

I ask that we consider how to help leaseholders. These are Conservative voters and the children of Conservative voters, who are now frustrated and angry that they cannot move up the housing ladder. We need to consider a way forward for them and remember that they have done what we Conservatives say that we always want to do: enable people to buy a home and get on the housing ladder. We are blocking them from moving forward. I ask the Secretary of State please to consider further action to help and support leaseholders.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Matt Rodda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) [V]]

The telly has been showing horrific scenes of flooding across the globe recently. What is infuriating is the more overtly man-made mini-flooding that my constituents in Holden Mill and Astley Bridge have been exposed to. We are talking about water ingress where what were once penthouses have become unwanted pools, decompartmentalisation leading to fire risk and issues associated with cladding, all of which are liable to increase costs for the tormented people living there. With today’s Bill, this Government, this Secretary of State and this MP have the chance to put things right for the people of Holden Mill.

The proposed reforms are welcome, particularly the extension of the Defective Premises Act 1972 and the limitation period. However, clause 124 is unlikely to be in place for at least a year and leaseholders risk having to pay ruinous costs for months to come. The only real route of redress against culpable parties is usually through costly litigation, so will the Department outline the provisions in place to help cash-strapped leaseholders and management companies pay for legal action involving extensions to the limitation period?

Some 20% of residents in the Cottonworks, a mill that has been converted into dwellings in my constituency, are affected by water ingress due to poor conversion by the developer PJ Livesey. Despite insurance cover with the National House Building Council, my constituents are facing a potential shortfall in excess of £1 million. These residents are living in torrid circumstances, and leaseholders have already had to pay into a levy, on top of service charges, to cover temporary measures concerning PJ Livesey’s alleged failings in relation to fire compartmentation. The timing of the levy could not be worse, and it is vital that these future costs are not passed on to innocent leaseholders.

How do we ensure that responsible and culpable parties do not abuse the statute of limitations by simply running down the clock? Some 280 leaseholders at the Cottonworks could face further levies, and they fear not being able to fund legal action. These companies—I am sure there are many such cases across the country—have slopey shoulders regarding poor workmanship, ping-ponging my constituents from company to company. I will be voting with the Government, standing shoulder to shoulder with these residents in Astley Bridge and across the country.

Finally, the intention to create a system of duty holders throughout the design, construction and occupation of high-risk buildings is welcome, but can the Minister and the Department assure my constituents that this will be applied retrospectively, finally providing residents with the power to make someone—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Rushanara Ali.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Since last October, the all-party parliamentary group for fire safety and rescue, which I chair—and I am delighted to see so many of its members participating in the debate—has responded in detail to four Government consultations on various aspects of fire and building safety. A further consultation was launched by the Department for Education on 27 May in relation to the revised fire safety design guide for new schools. In a nutshell, that proposes to remove in the future the requirement for automatic fire sprinkler protection for all but a very few new schools. This is not acceptable and I am delighted that it was raised at Prime Minister’s questions today.

We are suffering from consultation overload and we could really do with a road map as to how all these pieces of work fit together. Last Thursday was my third meeting with the noble Lord Greenhalgh on fire and building-related issues since 23 June. Only last week, during a joint meeting that I chaired with the all-party parliamentary group for disability, we heard a most distressing account of a disabled resident trapped on the 23rd floor of Grenfell Tower whose son carried her down through the smoke and flames at 2.30 am, one and half hours into the fire. Her husband tragically perished, having jumped from the building.

One significant issue raised by both the APPG and the National Fire Chiefs Council in their previous responses to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 consultation was that there remains a fundamental disconnect between the non-worsening conditions of building regulations and the expectations of continuous improvements through the fire risk assessment process set by the fire safety order. Regulation 4 of the Building Regulations 2010 states that where the work did not previously comply with schedule 1, the new work, when complete, should be

“no more unsatisfactory in relation to that requirement than before the work was carried out”—

meaning that the general fire precautions may never get improved to modern standards. This runs contrary to the principles of prevention outlined in the fire safety order—that premises’ risk assessment should adapt to technical progress and reduce overall risk within buildings.

Non-worsening provisions are resulting in lost opportunities to improve building safety. An example is the refurbishment of Lakanal House following a multiple-fatality fire. The London fire commissioner told the coroner that automatic fire sprinkler protection would have prevented the death of six residents who died if it had been installed. Subsequently, the coroner recommended to the then Secretary of State that he should encourage social housing providers in high-rise blocks of over 18 metres to consider retrofitting automatic sprinkler protections. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister: we must never make the same mistakes again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Debbie Abrahams.

Planning

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates.

I remind Members participating, physically and virtually, that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall. They are expected to remain for the entire debate. I remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on at all times during the debate. They will be visible at all times during the debate both to each other and to us here in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks email address, [e-mail].

Members attending physically should clean their spaces before using them and before leaving the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the planning system and the upcoming Planning Bill.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummings.

I thank the Minister for being present and Members for taking part in the debate. I am very respectful of the Minister and I do not underestimate the challenges that he faces in changing a complex system. We need sensible reform, but we need to get it right, and it is in that positive spirit that I intend to speak. I will speak for no more than 10 minutes, because I want to get as many people in as possible.

I will reiterate some concerns and, significantly, suggest as many solutions as I can; some have been made by me and some by near 100 Members on the WhatsApp group. I sent those ideas to the Prime Minister and to the Housing Department a few weeks ago for thought, and I look forward to a response. I put forward an approach to planning based on three principles: that it should be community led, levelling-up led and environment led. I commend those to Ministers. First, however, I will outline some concerns.

Reform, I believe, is better than scrapping and starting again. Scrapping threatens to misdiagnose the problem. Nine in 10 planning applications are approved, but only 60% of permissions are built, so there are more than 1 million unbuilt permissions in a decade. The basic fact is that we have a flawed market. The building cartels, which build the majority of homes, restrict supply. That is not a secret; it is in their building model. They act to prevent prices falling. That is why using housebuilding alone, or predominantly, to lower prices will not work.

Furthermore, the standard method damages the levelling-up agenda. That is critical, especially given the Prime Minister’s excellent speech today. Levelling up is a moral and economic imperative. It is also a political imperative for the Government. However, a flawed planning Bill will undermine that levelling-up process. Some red wall colleagues are now beginning to see that.

Knight Frank reported that the current methodology, the standard method,

“systematically disadvantages poorer parts of the country, particularly in the North and Midlands”.

The north has 23% of the nation’s population, but its housing need is estimated at not even 16% of the total, and its share of public expenditure on housing is barely 18% of the total. The housing infrastructure fund spends £115 per head in the east of England and an astonishingly low £4 per head in Yorkshire.

The standard method directs investment away from levelling up communities. It heats up the already hot and it cools down those people who need to be cooking on gas—pardon the analogy. Other people will talk about the potential loss of democracy and other concerns, so I will not dwell too much on them, because I want to focus on one or two specific issues, but it is clear from talking to colleagues that there is much variation in people’s concerns. For some it is green fields and damage to tourism or quality of life, and for others it is suburban density, building height or the absolute absurdity of building on floodplains. For others, it is a system that is simply not delivering affordable homes.

I will say that there is a slight frustration. Opponents of reform—well, opponents of scrapping the system rather than reforming it—are sometimes portrayed as nimbys. On the Island, on the Isle of Wight, we have been yimbys for 50 years—we have been in our backyard. We have increased our population by 50% in 50 years. In that time, the cities of Newcastle, Sunderland, Hull, Liverpool, Manchester, Blackpool, Birmingham and Stoke have all declined—not relatively declined but declined in absolute percentage and numbers. So when people say that opponents of a developer-led system in the south are nimbys, I respectfully argue that they should acquaint themselves with some basic facts about the history of development that has taken place in this country since world war two. We have barely no new infrastructure on the Isle of Wight, and our key gas supplies, water and electricity interconnectors are already operating at near capacity.

So what are the solutions? I want most of this speech to be positive. I will look at our three principles and suggest perhaps a dozen or 15 ideas in the time I have available. Some of them are community led, some environmentally led and some levelling-upled, but they all gel together to look at ways we can support the Minister in the important work that he is doing, which we want to support.

Our reforms are: first, enshrine the ability to object to individual planning applications; secondly, give greater weight to reforming neighbourhood plans; thirdly, outlaw gazumping. We know that communities with neighbourhood plans accept higher housing allocations because they see what is in it for them. We know that gazumping slows down the market and imposes costs. Good democracy and good law help good development.

On levelling up, there are many things one could say, but I will stick to one. We need to fundamentally reform the standard model and redirect infrastructure funding and house building jobs to levelling-up areas as a deliberate act of policy. Without that, we will have to explain to our voters in a few years’ time why all that infrastructure funding, or so much of it, is going down south, and it will not be a pretty conversation with southern colleagues and voters or red wall and levelling-up communities.

Finally, a series of ideas linked to the environment. We need to end the use of lazy greenfield development. I know Ministers want that, but it would be great if they could want it more. We need a recycling culture in land use. I am aware that some good ideas in the White Paper are about infrastructure levies, but it needs to price in the true cost of using up very valuable rare greenfield land. For many areas I fear that will be a markedly higher price than will be factored into the Bill. We need, in short, to change the economics of land use.

We need a greenfield tax so that money goes into brownfield clean-up in a dedicated way. If we are using, especially in a place such as the Isle of Wight, rare greenfield land, we need to get a greater good out of it than Persimmon’s bottom line. We need to zero-rate brownfield development, encourage it and build in financial incentives, especially for small-scale brownfield in small towns and communities, to make it work.

There are many loopholes that I could suggest closing, but I will not, given the time. I will just say that we need greater powers of compulsory purchase to force people to act more quickly. There are 600 unused and derelict properties on the Isle of Wight. If the Minister wants to get 600 extra properties on the Isle of Wight, he should give the Isle of Wight Council more power. Make it easier for us to enforce action on derelict and unused properties in order to force sale or to force use. Introduce a character test to screen out dodgy developers. If he wants to clean up the system, let him be the sheriff who gets rid of cowboy developers.

Buyers who turn homes—I think this was suggested by a colleague who will be speaking shortly—into Airbnb or holiday homes should be required to apply to councils for change of use. Councils should be allowed to frame localised plans to reverse and lower the percentage of long-term holiday and commercial holiday rentals in specific communities.

We help first-time buyers, so why not last-time sellers with stamp duty exemption? It will cost money. One in five over-65s would be, according to facts and figures, more likely to move. That could affect 2 million people—£900 billion-worth of property. That would free up the market and allow market-driven solutions where there is not market failure. Clearly, there is an element here.

Finally, land banking. If we want to boost supply, we need to create a use-it-or-lose-it rule for permissions within a realistic time bracket. That means more than starting a development by digging a trench six foot by six. Agreeing a start date means agreeing just that and making council tax payable on all plots after a given date, regardless of whether they are built. If the purpose of the Minister’s planning Bill is to help developers, these ideas will not be attractive to many of them, but if its purpose is to get people into homes and to help first-time buyers—I am sure it is—these ideas, and many others suggested by colleagues, will help him produce a markedly better planning Bill, or a planning Bill that is as good and as attractive as we all want it to be.

We need solid principles behind the planning Bill. It should be community led, levelling-up led, and environment led. We need to be sensitive to local democracy. We need a levelling-up agenda that spreads prosperity and hope around our country. To make it environment led, we have to move away from unsustainable, lazy, car-dependent and carbon-inefficient greenfield development, and we need to build for communities and in communities.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

I ask hon. Members to limit their contributions to around three to four minutes, because I plan to start calling the Front Benchers at 2.38 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

Can I raise a point of order?

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Please sit down. That is not a point of order.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful, Mrs Cummins, for that ruling. I am conscious that I probably have only about six minutes left in which to conclude my remarks, to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight time to sum up the debate.

A number of Members have raised the issue of infrastructure. We all know that when we build homes, those homes need the requisite infrastructure to support them: the GP clinics, the parks, the schools, the roads and the roundabouts. We want to make sure that we have a system that provides those things when they are needed and not way down the line. We do not believe that the present system—a mixture of section 106 agreements and community infrastructure levy payments—meets that requirement.

Indeed, 80% of local authorities tell us that section 106 does not work for them. It is loaded in favour of developers, especially the bigger guns, and often means that infrastructure comes late or not at all. If it does appear to be coming, it is often negotiated away in a manner that local authorities and local communities do not want. That is why we have proposed an infrastructure levy, which will provide up front the infrastructure that local communities want and need. We will make sure that, in doing so, we deliver just as much affordable housing as is delivered in the present system.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) made the very important point about the challenge that some rural communities face. I am open to considering ways in which we can help local people to remain living close to where they come from or where they work. One of the initiatives that we have announced is the first homes initiative, paid for through developer contributions, which will ensure that local people will be able to buy, at a discount of at least 30%, a home in their local community. Those homes will be covenanted, in perpetuity, to ensure that when or if they are sold on, the buyers, who will be local people—they could be key workers—will also buy at 30% at least below the then local market rate. However, I am open to hearing from colleagues about what other opportunities there may be to encourage local people to stay close to their communities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight also raised the issue of neighbourhood plans. I am very keen that we build, and bake, neighbourhood plans into the new planning system. They can be very effective and engaging. The trouble is that there are fewer of them the further north—or further into urban areas—we go, so in our planning reforms we are looking at ways to ensure that more neighbourhood plans are produced across the country so that additional housing is identified, with good designs and local infrastructure, to support those communities.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of recycling. We have already made it very clear—in our national planning policy statements, and in the national planning policy framework—that brownfield ought to come first. We have backed that up with fiscal spending to ensure that we are paying for remediation in and around our country. Some £400 million was made available last year for the remediation of brownfield sites in mayoral combined authorities, with a further £100 million made available by the Chancellor in the latest Budget. We are determined to put brownfield first.

In our permitted development rights reforms—I know some colleagues are not so very keen on those—we also encourage the development of redundant sites, or shops that are no longer viable, in towns and city centres. That means we are building homes in the places where people need them, which takes the weight off the transport infrastructure as they are close to GP clinics and other services that people want and need. We are addressing that issue of recycling, too.

In the short time that I have left, I will speak about build-out. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), talked about a ten-minute rule Bill. I would suggest that it is a “ten-minute thought” Bill, because we do not really know from their proposals how the Opposition would deal with issues like gaming or whether they would help and support small and medium-sized enterprises, rather than making the system more difficult for them. We do not know whether they are proposing that the timetable system should relate to the permissions granted or the building commencement date.

However, we are keen to ensure that we find sensible mechanisms to encourage the build-out of permissions where they exist. We have heard what people have said, both across this Chamber and in response to the consultation, and we are determined to ensure that, where appropriate, permissions are built out rapidly.

[Wera Hobhouse]

On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. I want to put on the record the fact that the Minister gave this Chamber incorrect information. Bath and North East Somerset Council has a fully updated local plan in place. It is going through a partial revision and is halfway through the terms of its current plan. But while the partial revision is taking place, the local plan is fully updated.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

The Minister is here and your point of order is now on the record.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful, Mrs Cummins. I can tell you that the information I have is that the plan was last updated in 2014—some seven years ago.

We are determined to ensure that our reforms meet the tests that my hon. Friend, and others, have set—to speed up the planning system to make it more effective, engaging and transparent. I look forward to the support of all colleagues across the House when we bring our proposals forward later this year.

Beauty and Wellbeing Sector Workforce

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing the debate.

In many places, including my constituency, beauty and wellbeing businesses are the lifeblood of the high street. Of course, it is an industry predominantly run by women, for women and employing women, and prior to the pandemic it contributed up to £30 billion to our economy. However, it was harder hit than most sectors by coronavirus restrictions, and it was hit particularly hard in places such as Bradford South, which faced even tougher measures for much longer than anywhere else. Business owners and the workforce can be said to have been well and truly rocked in the past 15 months. Businesses have closed, skilled therapists have been forced to find work elsewhere, and fewer newly qualified professionals are joining the industry.

Despite those challenges, there can be a bright future for the sector, as the services that it delivers are increasingly valued by people after they have got through such a tough time. I thank all the practitioners up and down the country for their work, because much of the industry delivers excellent services in a safe and highly professional way. One business owner in my constituency told me how she donated her stocks of personal protective equipment to frontline workers when her business was forced to close in lockdown. That is typical of an industry that contributes so much. Then there is the work of Beauty Banks, a charity that supports those living in poverty by providing essential hygiene products.

However, the lack of regulation around the ever-growing list of treatments available means that consumers cannot have confidence that their treatment has been administered by someone who is appropriately trained. A certificate hanging on the wall is just not good enough. Getting standards across the board to match best practice requires regulation that ensures that a consistent level of training is delivered to medical and non-medical practitioners.

The APPG on beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing, which I co-chair with my good and hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East, held an inquiry into non-surgical cosmetic procedures, which found a growing prevalence of short qualifications—often as short as a day—for non-surgical procedures such as injectables. That is alarming for consumers, as that type of advanced aesthetic procedure cannot be taught well in a single day. To ensure that standards are lifted for the entire industry, the Government need to strengthen regulation and training for non-surgical cosmetic treatments for medics and non-medics alike. It is what the public expect, and it is what the Government need to deliver.

Planning System Reforms: Wild Belt Designation

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate, and there will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate.

I must also remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their cameras on for the duration of the debate and that they will be visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email [e-mail]. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room.

I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall. Members attending physically who are in the later stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move to the horseshoe when seats become available. Members can speak from the horseshoe only where there are microphones.

I aim to start the Front-Bench speeches promptly at 5.35 pm, so an immediate time limit of three minutes, which might need to be reduced as we go on, will apply in order to include everybody in the debate. Please consider keeping interventions to an absolute minimum. I call Claire Coutinho to move the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, and I join other Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) on securing such an apposite debate. It is a testament to her and to the importance of the issue that so many colleagues have joined us. It is always a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes).

If hon. Members will indulge me, I will stake a claim to representing rewilding central, because I share not only the estate of Knepp with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), where we have beavers and white storks, but the Norfolk estate, which has done such a fantastic job nurturing the difficult-to-rear grey partridge.

Last week, the Minister visited the Barlavington estate in my constituency, where there is one of the last surviving populations of the rare Duke of Burgundy butterfly. Unlike a fellow yellow or orange-tiered species, this is one that we do wish to foster in the south of England. All this is connected by places such as the Wiston estate, where Richard and his family continue to nurture environments. Sadly, we do not have any water buffalo—I shall take the message back to west Sussex that no rewilding project is complete without them.

We benefit in many parts from the South Downs national park, where genuine protection is given. Areas between the national park can be knitted with areas of natural beauty, such as Chichester harbour or the North Weald. However, too often—and increasingly—they are separated not just by islands of concrete, but by encroaching areas of it. The wild belt proposal from the Wildlife Trusts, which has my full support, would be a magnificent endeavour to protect the precious species we have heard about. It commands my support and I hope the Minister will take that into account. We know he is listening and has been extremely diligent in consulting with colleagues. However, as we bring forward proposals, would the wild belt not be a wonderful component within a new planning system that put nature at its heart?

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to wear masks when they are not speaking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) on securing this debate on a wild belt in the planning system. I commend her contribution, and those of so many others, about the importance of wildlife and the added value that local wildlife trusts and others provide by increasing biodiversity and protecting nature in their constituencies. We have heard so many good speeches.

The importance of our wildlife, and the need to protect and enhance it, is not in doubt. What has been in doubt is the Government’s commitment to bring forward legislation that will be effective in halting and reversing that decline in the UK, and specifically in the planning system, on which so much of the future of our country’s land is dependent. The Government claim to be protecting native and endangered species, but we need to ensure that the rhetoric and the reality match.

I will not reiterate the facts about the level of the crisis of nature depletion in the UK—I thank the Wildlife Trusts for the excellent briefing—but there is no doubt that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. We failed to meet 17 of 20 UN biodiversity targets, while funding for UK wildlife and environment has been slashed by 30% in two years. We need a serious plan for delivery of the recovery of nature but, unfortunately, we have a Prime Minister who has dismissed those trying to protect our natural environment as “newt counters”. Funding has dropped, particularly to Natural England, where staffing has halved since 2010.

The planning system needs to be at the centre of the challenge. It can and should be shaping a path towards net zero emissions and our work to improve biodiversity and our natural environment across the country. I will not rehearse the concerns expressed by many Members in last night’s debate about proposals to amend the planning system, but there is no doubt that those working in the field say that the existing protections are inadequate to protect wildlife and wildlife sites.

Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have said in the main Chamber that with the Environment Bill, they want to protect the environment and include new species abundance targets. However, the amendments that we have now seen commit only to

“further the objective of halting a decline in the abundance of species.”

In those amendments, there is no commitment to reversing the decline in nature. That is left to the planning system to achieve, and the proposed planning Bill will be crucial.

I will close my remarks with some questions for the planning Minister. Will the forthcoming planning legislation do what the Environment Bill clearly does not? The Government have said that they want to ensure that street trees are planted in every new development. That is a clear and measurable target, and it is to be welcomed. Will they do the same for other natural environment targets? If the Government have given consideration to introducing the status of a wild belt, how will we know that that is binding and a reality, not yet more rhetoric?

How exactly will the Government strengthen planning powers? How will developers be held to conditions once they have gone and future landowners manage the land? The Government intend local plans to be the primary tool for shaping and delivering future development. That will require huge resources and specialist expertise from both councils and non-governmental organisations, particularly if wild belts are to be a factor in all local plans; that is the only time the public will get a say in planning decisions in growth areas, which will cover a fair bit of the country. As it appears as though the public will be excluded from decisions around planning applications in growth areas, how will local wildlife trusts and other community organisations input their concerns and expertise into the decision making on specific planning applications? I leave those questions with the Minister, who may reply now or in writing.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

I gently remind the Minister that he may wish to leave a couple of minutes for the Member in charge to respond.

Levelling-up Agenda: Tees Valley

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham]

I almost have to laugh. Talking down Teesside? It is the greatest honour of my life to represent the amazing and diverse citizens of Stockton North, and to champion the vibrant history and culture of the Tees Valley. The real problem is that for the past 10 years, the Tories have been booting down Teesside. Their mind-boggling incompetence in handling the covid crisis is yet another catastrophic kick to the region. Pointing out the heartbreaking inequalities that affect our constituents is not talking down our area. It is standing up for our area in the face of a national Conservative Government who have neglected the north-east for years. The Tees economy is on the cliff edge of a hard Brexit, and the lack of investment and post-pandemic rebuilding will push it into the abyss.

The North East England chamber of commerce policy director, Jonathan Walker, got it exactly right when he said:

“The human, social and economic cost of this is appalling. Levelling up has to mean more than just shiny projects. It must mean giving young people in our region the same life chances as they’d get in other parts of the country.”

He came out with another statement today; he said that the Chancellor’s announcement today was a missed opportunity:

“On the face of it a levelling-up fund sounds good but it is far too small in scale and ambition to be effective.”

I want our young people to get the benefits, but sadly I see no prospect of them getting the support they need. There are plenty of these shiny projects, but the absence of substance breaks my heart, because they could have so much more. Our constituents deserve better than this. They need better than this.

I appeal to the Minister to stress to his colleagues the need for true levelling up; for help sustaining jobs and creating new ones; to be open, honest and transparent when dealing with public money; to end the health inequalities that continue to blight our communities; and, perhaps above all, to give our young people real hope that they can have the careers they want and a future they can look forward to. Let us make the expression “levelling up” more than a cliché. Let us make it a demonstration of action.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

I ask Back Benchers to keep within five minutes to start with. I am planning to call Front Benchers at around 5.15 pm. Simon Clarke.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Howell]

The Tees Valley Mayor’s initiatives, such as the Tees Flex bus service, are a very good step in the right direction. I wish that that service would come up to the north of my constituency.

We must remember that, in order to level up, the benefits and successes of regeneration from freeports, green jobs and so on must be distributed across the region. The critical advantage is connections to those projects by air, bus, train, bike—whatever. I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to provide funding to start a feasibility study on Ferryhill station and include it in the national infrastructure plan. The residents have been asking for it for 24 years. When a certain Tony Blair was the MP for Sedgefield, there was no progress whatever. The comment we got from the local Labour group was, “Thatcher stopped that.” Well, 24 years is plenty of time to fix it.

My point is that we need a long-term plan focused on connectivity. It is important to have an integrated transport system and short, medium and long-term commitments to encourage optimistic investment by business and housing in places where it is needed. We look forward to further benefits of opening this rail connection, which would open the door and provide a foundation to better connect Teesside with Tyneside and Wearside and improve connectivity.

Alongside the levelling up of our physical infrastructure, we must also level up our social infrastructure. This funding will be vital in the medium to long-term response to covid, since research shows that the pandemic is likely to exacerbate existing social and economic problems in left-behind neighbourhoods. What I mean by levelling up our social infrastructure is building social capital and investing in our communities and community projects.

I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for “left behind” neighbourhoods, and we have identified 122 constituencies with left-behind communities. We define those by using the community needs index and taking the bottom 10% of the wards in England. Some 30% of those were in former—I say again, former—red wall constituencies, and seven of the eight constituencies in the Tees Valley include left-behind neighbourhoods.

One proposal, for a community wealth fund, would provide investment and put left-behind communities in charge of the spend, enabling them to build the social capital and civic infrastructure they need. I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment in the spending review to a levelling up fund and the new community fund, and I hope to work with all local colleagues to maximise its application in our area.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Before I call the last two Back Benchers, I remind them that I want the Front- Bench speeches to start at a quarter past.