Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
At the last oral questions, the Secretary of State assured me that she had no plans to increase council tax for anyone. However, when pressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), she would not give the same guarantee that the single occupant discount would be retained. Will Ministers take the opportunity to do so now?
Jim McMahon
I can see the shadow Secretary of State making that point repeatedly, because at this stage we are all waiting for the statement and the Budget that will contain that information, but I can say that the right decisions will be made in the interests of working people. We recognise the cost of living crisis that is being faced across the country. I am sure that she, like all Members of the House, is waiting with interest for Wednesday.
Mrs Badenoch
Local authorities employ 2 million people and commission services such as adult social care. The impact assessment for the Secretary of State’s Employment Rights Bill says that the Bill will increase costs. Those costs are likely to be passed on to councils, so has the Secretary of State assessed the impact of the Employment Rights Bill and an increase in employers’ national insurance specifically on local authorities? If costs do increase, will local councils be compensated?
Jim McMahon
Any decisions related to the Budget will be taken at the appropriate time, as will any decisions on the local government finance settlement. What I can say, though, is that this is a new partnership from this Government: we are not locking local government out, but standing shoulder to shoulder with it. Only last week at the Local Government Association conference in Harrogate, the Secretary of State launched the leaders’ council, a forum where central and local government will reset that relationship.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Labour made a big song and dance about tackling rogue landlords. No doubt Labour Members will have been made aware of revelations reported in The Londoner this morning about the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal). Not only is he letting out mouldy homes with infestation, but he is the landlord of an unsafe private care home where children have gone missing and been left at risk of criminal exploitation. Do the Government have plans to tackle the rogue landlord on their own Benches?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her question. As I understand it, the Member for Ilford South says in his statement that there have been no conflicts of interest and that all interests have been declared in line with his council’s rules.
Mr Speaker
I presume the shadow Secretary of State let the hon. Member for Ilford South know that she was going to mention him on the Floor of the House.
Mr Speaker
I say to all Members that mentioning other Members cannot be done without giving notice. I presume the right hon. Lady’s second question will be on a different issue.
Mrs Badenoch
I apologise, Mr Speaker. I will check with my office. I cannot say for certain that they did not let the hon. Member know.
Does the right hon. Lady agree that reducing the capacity of councils by 20% by allowing workers an additional paid day off every week—that is what a four-day week actually is—is unacceptable and does not provide good value for money for taxpayers or residents?
Angela Rayner
I am really proud of our Employment Rights Bill and I am really proud to stand here as someone who advocates for flexible working. We do not dictate to councils how they run their services; we work with councils. The right hon. Lady should be able to work out that flexible working is no threat to business and no threat to the economy. In fact, it will boost productivity.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
It is a privilege to open for the Opposition on Second Reading of the Renters’ Rights Bill in this momentous week. As the Secretary of State mentioned, Labour reaches 100 days in office this week, for which it is to be congratulated, as not everyone gets to 100 days—Sue Gray didn’t. [Hon. Members: “Liz Truss didn’t!”] Neither did Sue Gray. The point is that not everyone gets to 100 days, so we congratulate the Government. So far, the only real actions we have seen are the noisy infighting and chaos that resulted in the hurried reset we saw over the weekend—oh dear. This Renters’ Rights Bill will only add to the chaos.
The first time the Secretary of State and I faced each other across the Dispatch Box, I warned her that she is being stitched up by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I also told her that we are here to help, and we are, especially as it has been a particularly rough time to be a woman in the Labour party. It is not just the sacking of Sue Gray—she is soon to be awarded what Winston Churchill called a “disapeerage”—as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) has taken the brave decision to leave the Labour party. I have followed the hon. Lady’s career in this place closely and, although we do not agree on everything, she is very brave.
Dawn Butler
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is Second Reading of the Renters’ Rights Bill, and the shadow Secretary of State is all over the place.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am sure the shadow Secretary of State will come back to that subject.
Mrs Badenoch
I am still on that subject, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for Canterbury took the brave decision to leave the Labour party. I have followed her career in this place closely and, although we do not agree on everything, she is very brave. Perhaps the Secretary of State will feel nervous as she introduces the Bill, because I know that her Department is already breaking promises of its own. It promised a new national planning policy framework within 100 days, yet there is no new framework. There is just a consultation, as I predicted during our last debate on this subject.
To be fair, the Department has finally produced this Renters’ Rights Bill, after copying and pasting quite a lot of our Bill, but it is still not ready. The truth is that it cannot fix the rental market by tying it in knots with further interventions and directives. The simple truth is that this Bill will not work and the proposals will fail.
We know the Bill will fail because this approach has been tried in Scotland by those great experts in failure, the Scottish National party. Research by Indigo House, the housing expert, has found that none of the Scottish legislation since 2017 has protected the majority of private residential tenants against excessive rent increases or high advertised market rents. It has discovered that tenants have found it more difficult to find a home, and that there is a particularly negative impact on those in greatest need, including homeless households and those with less economic power, such as those claiming welfare benefits.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on an important subject. Is she familiar with this week’s report from Scotland’s Housing Network revealing that 16% of landlords are reducing their supply, and fully 12% are considering leaving the sector over precisely this sort of attempt to over-regulate what would otherwise be a free market?
Mrs Badenoch
I have not seen that specific report, but I have seen others that indicate that this is happening. We have to be careful. I appreciate that the Government want to make renting more secure and affordable, and we want to do that too, but this Bill will have the opposite effect, as we have seen in Scotland. As this Government will find out over the course of this Parliament, they cannot buck the market.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State recall why the previous Government failed to introduce such measures, as they intended?
Mrs Badenoch
Yes, I do recall. The reason why our Bill did not get through is that we recognised its flaws. That is what I mean when I say that I worry about the Secretary of State, because the bright young things in Downing Street who have sent her out with this Bill do not care if it fails. They will take the credit today, but she will get the blame tomorrow, and tenants will get bad regulation, shortages and higher prices, as we have seen in Scotland. Those higher prices will be paid by tenants, especially young people and the less well off.
Shaun Davies
Is it not the case that, as the country will see from the right hon. Lady’s speech, tenants in the private rented sector will fear the return of the Conservative party, in the same way as mums who rely on maternity pay?
Mrs Badenoch
That question is nonsense. My point is that tenants will not be able to find properties to rent in the first place. From that intervention, it seems that Labour still does not understand these concepts.
We worry that the higher prices will be paid by tenants, especially young people and the less well off. Demand is rising in England, but availability is not keeping up. Forty-seven per cent. of landlords have either attempted to sell a property in 2023 or are thinking of doing so, with the biggest reason being to their fear of new laws.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Penrith and Solway contains the Lake District national park and other tourist areas. Does the right hon. Lady recognise that the previous Government’s failure to introduce their promised reforms to section 21 has led to many private landlords moving from the private rented sector into the holiday let market? Her reasoned amendment says the Bill will
“reduce the supply of housing”—
Mrs Badenoch
Private landlords react to legislation, which is why we say that such legislation will reduce housing in the private rented sector. Fifty-six per cent. of landlords cited our Renters (Reform) Bill as a factor in their decision to sell. We already recognise those flaws, and such a reduction in supply is bad for both tenants and landlords. We are losing homes in the private rented sector.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Lady recognise that the reduction in supply over the past few years is primarily down to the increase in interest rates, which has driven landlords out of the sector? A sector that is fundamentally broken requires the Government to take action to provide security for those who need a home for themselves and their children.
Mrs Badenoch
Of course we want people to have security in homes, but to do that we need to increase supply. We did what we could when we were in government, and we will help this Government to deliver. The fact of the matter is that this legislation is not going to help. We would love it if it did—we tried to make it work and we could not—but it would have a negative effect.
Landlords provide a vital service. The private rented sector is essential for those who cannot yet afford a mortgage, for young people and for those who need to move for work. Landlords selling and giving up homes for rent for mortgages do not help many of the people who need to rent. The overwhelming majority of landlords are responsible—I am glad the Secretary of State acknowledged that—and law abiding, and they see their property as a sustainable long-term investment.
The Government claim the Bill will reform the rental market. We do not believe it will—it will break it. Respect for property rights is not just an abstract principle. It underpins confidence in our economy and legal system. If the Government do not protect property rights, investment is damaged. If investment is damaged, growth is hit. It is painfully clear to anyone who understands markets that the Bill will act as a powerful disincentive for anyone to rent out their property. Most tenants do not have friends and family to rent from and, unlike Members of the Labour party, they do not have millionaire donors to put them up, so they will suffer most when supply goes down and rents go up.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
If it was so patently obvious and it was such a fundamental principle of property rights, why did everyone on the Conservative Benches, including the right hon. Lady, stand on a manifesto committed to reform? Is it not the truth that rather than thinking such legislation would not work, the previous Government simply failed to deliver it, in common with many other things?
Mrs Badenoch
There is a big difference between having a headline in a manifesto and seeing the detail, as many Members on the Government Benches will soon find out. Earlier on, their Prime Minister could not answer the question about whether the Government will increase taxes. Campaigning is easy, but governing is hard.
Mrs Badenoch
We will find out soon enough.
Perhaps Members on the Government Benches are oblivious to these costs and dynamic effects—listening to their interventions, it appears so. I note that no impact assessment for the Bill is available, an omission that has rightly drawn criticism from the Regulatory Policy Committee. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether an impact assessment has been undertaken? If it exists, where is it? If it does not exist, why did the Government not ask for one? I hope this is not how the Labour Government mean to go on.
When I was in government, I provided impact assessments on all sorts of complex legislation. I know that is difficult and can create arguments, but I also know there is a lot more badly thought out and costly regulation where this came from, and we on the Opposition Benches are worried. I know Members on the Government Benches will want to point to the last Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill—I have heard their interventions—but the fact is, that Bill was flawed. I am quite happy to say that, but at least it recognised the practical effect of its provisions and would not have come into full effect until the courts were ready.
The then Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee warned in 2023 that the equivalent provisions in the Renters (Reform) Bill created
“a real risk that the current systems will be overwhelmed, and there will be a logjam with lengthy delays.”
This Government are pressing ahead with measures that will cause gridlock in our justice system, and pit landlords and tenants against each other in protracted litigation.
Ben Coleman
It is absolutely extraordinary to hear strong opposition to every part of the Bill from the right hon. Lady, or am I mistaken? Is she opposed to the parts of the Bill that will protect children from getting breathing problems and ending up being hospitalised? Is she against the protections the Bill introduces so that people can finally live in decent accommodation? If she does not oppose those things, why is she so relentlessly negative and—forgive me, as a new Member—so relentlessly patronising?
Mrs Badenoch
I do not mean to be patronising, but it is quite difficult when there are very clear issues that have a precedent in Scotland. The question is not why I am being patronising; the question is why the Government are ignoring what has happened when these proposals have been tried in another part of the UK. That is a serious problem. All of us here want the best for children and to see tenants do well. It is very wrong of the hon. Gentleman to ascribe negative motivations when we are pointing out problems with legislation. We on the Opposition Benches are doing our job. We do not think the Bill will work.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
On that point, will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs Badenoch
I would like to make some progress.
The Government are pressing ahead with measures that will cause gridlock in the justice system, which will create even more problems for tenants. The people the Government are trying to help will not be able to get a home in the first place—none of us want to see that. We have to do better.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
On that point, will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs Badenoch
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin).
Mike Martin
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. Some 25% of Conservative MPs are landlords. Does that have any bearing on the Conservative party’s position on the Bill?
Mrs Badenoch
We need to focus on the contents of the Bill. If anyone has an issue with landlords in this House, it is Labour Members—I notice the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) ran away before the discussion about the Bill started. They should look at themselves, and the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells had better check his fellow Members before asking that sort of question.
As I was saying, when the problems of protracted litigation in the courts are combined with the new, extended and highly convoluted notice requirements for recovering a property where the tenant has not paid the rent, a landlord whose tenant is in arrears will face many months of uncertainty and cost. Let me summarise in two words why the Bill will fail: unintended consequences. That is what we get when we start with policy rather than first principles.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
Does the right hon. Lady think that there is already gridlock in the county courts? As of today, a landlord who secures a possession order will wait 12 weeks to get a bailiff’s warrant. Our courts are gridlocked right now.
Mrs Badenoch
That is an excellent point—we should not make the problem worse.
We should start with first principles not policy, but there are no first principles here that will help the Bill get through. We want to help the Bill become legislation to deliver for tenants and landlords. However, as I have heard from the comments that have been made, this seems to be about the left being seen to be tough on landlords and passing legislation with the right sounding title, rather than delivering real improvement to people’s lives.
I heard the Secretary of State teasing my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), but it is hypocritical to criticise those of us in the House who declare our interests—we on the Conservative Benches do that well—when a Labour MP was disgraced in the press for letting out unsanitary homes with mould. The Government should look at why they have Members who are behaving that way.
We want a housing market that works for everyone—landlords, tenants and those who want to own their home. By attacking those who rent out homes, they will damage investment in new homes. They will push landlords out of the market and drive up rents. That is bad for everyone. By piling on excessive regulation, they will push good landlords out and empower those bad landlords who simply ignore the rules. We need to look at enforcement of the rules we already have.
We all agree that renters need a better deal, but this Bill is not going to work. It is not what renters need—we found that out and we want to help deliver a good Bill. If the Government want to help renters, they should drive up housing supply: so far, no sign of that. If the Government want to help renters, they need to reduce immigration: so far, no sign of that. Some 80% of recent migrants have moved into the private rental sector, creating a demand the sector cannot cope with. If the Government want to help renters, they need to enforce existing rules against the bad landlords that do not look after their tenants, rather than create new rules that will make the problem worse.
This legislation is typical of Labour in government. We have tabled a reasoned amendment because the Bill fails to fix the major issues and adds yet more rules and regulations to keep the bureaucrats busy, rather than finding solutions to help those tenants who desperately need them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We think that the legislation will take the burden off advice charities. The database provisions will ensure that tenants and landlords have access to information, and know better what is required from them under the new system. It is absolutely right that we move at pace to get the legislation through the House.
During the many hours we have debated the Bill, an extremely wide range of issues have been raised, and I will seek to respond to as many as possible in the time available to me. First, I want to address the reasoned amendment tabled by the Opposition. My opposite number, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), struck a constructive tone, but when the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), made the case for the reasoned amendment, we were treated to a bizarre spectacle; she chid us for copying and pasting many of the sensible provisions in the previous Government’s Bill, but then told us that those provisions would have “added to the chaos”. The problem is that she supported that legislation at every stage. She voted for its Second Reading; she supported it through Committee; and she voted for the carry-over motion to see it progress. She voted for it on Report and Third Reading, and took it into wash-up. She now asks us to accept that she believed it was flawed all along. Well, party leadership election contests can do funny things. She may not have confidence in her manifesto—which, let me remind her, stated that the Government at that time were committed to passing renters reform along the lines of their previous legislation—but we have confidence in ours and we are determined to deliver it.
Matthew Pennycook
No. The right hon. Member has had her time.
We strongly refute the central contention in the reasoned amendment that the Bill fails to provide security and affordability for private renters or to respect the property rights of landlords and that it
“will reduce the supply of housing in the private rented sector”.
The Bill strikes the right balance between the interests of landlords and tenants. While we acknowledge that it will take time for the sector, including build to rent providers, to adjust to a significant change in regulation, we do not believe that this legislation will have a harmful impact on future rental supply—which, by the way, we are taking steps to boost, not least by providing more opportunities for investment in a growing build to rent sector. The reasoned amendment is weak and disingenuous. I urge colleagues to vote it down when we arrive in the Lobby in a few minutes.
Let me turn to a set of specific issues referred to in the reasoned amendment and raised by a number of hon. Members in the debate: namely, tenancy reform, fixed-term tenancies and court improvements. The move to a new single system of periodic tenancies is at the heart of the Bill. The introduction of the new tenancy regime will see the end of fixed-term tenancies and the long-overdue abolition of section 21 no-fault evictions. As a result, tenants will enjoy greater stability and security, and landlords will benefit from clear and expanded possession grounds to evict tenants in circumstances where that is justified and reasonable.
To avoid confusion and to ensure that renters on existing tenancies do not have to wait even longer for the threat of arbitrary evictions to be lifted, we intend to apply the new system to all tenancies in a single stage. We will appoint the commencement date by regulations at an appropriate interval after Royal Assent. Our intention is to give the sector as much notice as possible.
A number of hon. Members mentioned fixed-term tenancies. I want to be clear that it is the Government’s firm view that there is no place for fixed terms in the future assured tenancy system. Fixed terms mean that renters are obliged to pay rent regardless of whether a property is up to standard, and they reduce renters’ flexibility to move when they need to. It is right that the Bill ensures that all tenancies will be periodic in future, ending the injustice of tenants being trapped paying rent for substandard properties.
Good landlords have nothing to fear from this change, either. Tenants simply do not move houses unless it is absolutely necessary. When they do leave, they will be required to provide two months’ notice, giving landlords sufficient time to find new tenants. Nor will the PRS become an Airbnb-lite, as some have suggested. Tenants will still have to pay up to five weeks’ deposit, complete referencing checks and commit for at least two months. Locking tenants in for longer with fixed-term tenancies would mean people being unable to leave dangerous situations and being trapped in situations, for example, of domestic abuse. We are not prepared to accept that.
Ensuring that the Courts and Tribunals Service is prepared for the implementation of the new system is essential. I take on board the challenge that many hon. Members, including Opposition Front Benchers, put to us in that regard. In considering the potential impact of the Bill on the county courts, it is however important to bear in mind that most tenancies end without court action being needed. It would also plainly be wrong to assume that all evictions that presently occur following a section 21 notice will in future require court proceedings under section 8 grounds.
One of the main effects of the Bill will be to reduce the number of arbitrary evictions that take place. That said, we recognise that landlords need a reliable and efficient county court system to ensure that they can quickly reclaim their properties when appropriate, and that we need a well-functioning tribunal process to resolve disputes in a timely manner. We agree that improvements to the courts and tribunals are needed to ensure that the new system functions effectively. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said at the outset of the debate, we are working closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that they are made, and exploring options for improved alternative dispute resolution so that only cases that need a judgment come to court.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Can the right hon. Lady give me her assessment of the Khan review into social cohesion?
Angela Rayner
The Khan review into social cohesion is one element of what we need to do to get back to addressing the issues of community cohesion, as opposed to the divisiveness of the way in which the previous Government looked at community cohesion. What I would like to see, instead of the language and tone we have seen from Members on the right hon. Member’s Benches, is the tone that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) took around how we can bring communities together and work together to ensure that people can respect people’s differences and celebrate what makes us British, and that is that we all have different places.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. Lady has not read the Khan review, as she would not have given that answer if she had.
The review talks about the 2021 incident at Batley grammar school, where a teacher was failed by local police and the local council and had to go into hiding. Given the fears about the rise is Islamist sectarianism in communities such as West Yorkshire, what are the right hon. Lady’s plans, especially as she has not read the review, to ensure that such incidents do not happen again?
Angela Rayner
I have read the review. Maybe the right hon. Lady was busy launching her leadership campaign earlier today.
The point I am making is that under the previous Administration there was not an element of community cohesion but constant division and stoking of division. I tried to bring our education system together when I was shadow Education Secretary. Across education, across my Department and across our Government I would like to see how we can celebrate our differences and bring communities together. If the right hon. Lady is successful in her bid to become Leader of the Opposition, I hope she will work with us on that endeavour.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
On the subject of the NPPF, I am grateful for the letter that the right hon. Lady sent to me on Saturday. I enjoyed reading it, especially her attempts to explain why she reduced Sadiq Khan’s London targets and, even more, where she highlights that he has consistently under-delivered. If other local leaders miss their new housing targets, will she reduce their targets too?
Angela Rayner
I find that astonishing, when the previous Government missed their targets every single year. As the Housing Minister has already set out, our methodology is about realistic expectations that people can meet. We will not shy away from the decisions that need to be made to make sure that we build the homes that people need. That is why we were elected, and that is what the right hon. Member needs to realise.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
It has been reported that the Secretary of State is being lobbied to increase council tax and remove discounts such as the single occupancy discount. Will she take this opportunity to reassure the House that the Government have no plans to increase council tax, as they assured us before the election?
Building Homes
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I echo the comments by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) regarding the appalling incident in Southport. We on the Conservative Benches send our deepest condolences to the families of all those who are impacted.
Having listened to the right hon. Lady’s statement, I have many questions. I know she will not be able to answer all of them, certainly not in the time we have today, so I hope that, for the questions she does not have the answer to now, she will be able to provide written answers within a month and before the end of the summer recess, so we can pick up quickly when we return for her Department’s oral questions.
The Labour party has a mandate to deliver what it promised in its manifesto. As a party which has governed for most of the past 100 years, the Conservatives respect that mandate. It is our job, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, to scrutinise its plans and ensure that Labour is saying what it means and, more importantly, doing what it says. With that right to deliver its manifesto come many responsibilities. Labour now has the responsibility—unlike in its manifesto—to be crystal clear about what it actually wants to do to avoid prolonged uncertainty. It now has a responsibility to understand and address the concerns of councillors and local residents. It now has a responsibility to explain the economics and allocate the funding that we all know will be needed for this plan. It now has a responsibility not to be contradictory in what it is setting out. It must not make promises that any impartial observer knows cannot be delivered. Crucially, it must not break its commitments early, yet we are already seeing changes to what it committed itself to.
On 20 June, the Chancellor stated that the Government would update the national planning policy framework within 100 days, so why is Labour now briefing that it will be before the end of the year? That is a lot more than 100 days. They have just started and they are already changing their targets. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the NPPF will be updated and in effect by mid-October, the deadline they set for themselves? They are proposing an eight-week consultation over the summer holidays for their updates to the NPPF. This is the third set of updates we will have in a year. In the previous consultation on the NPPF in 2023, we had 2,600 responses. How will they have a meaningful consultation, which is what the legislation requires, that respects the input of local planning authorities and others? There will be legal challenges. Are they ready for them?
The Government are proposing multiple changes to planning: the NPPF updates; the new primary legislation that the right hon. Lady just described; the changes to nutrient neutrality, which they have recently converted to; and the NSIP—just to name a few. The right hon. Lady says she wants to end constant changes and disruption to planning policy. That is great, but how will she avoid creating years of uncertainty and making it harder for local authorities and developers to build new housing as all those changes are worked through? As I said to her the last time we sat opposite each other, these things take time and they are not as straightforward as she is making out. The Government will not be able to deliver their ambitions unless they recognise that.
What is most interesting in the statement is that the right hon. Lady confirmed she is reducing the housing need calculation for London. Can she confirm whether that reduction will apply to other urban areas? Can she explain why she is reducing the need for cities like London to build more housing when they have the infrastructure to support it? Why is she forcing suburban and rural areas to take more housing when there are schools in Hackney, such as De Beauvoir primary school and Randal Cremer primary school, that are shutting down because they do not have enough pupils? Why is she doing that?
The Government talk about the grey belt in the planning framework. It is very interesting; I have had quick look through it. They define it, but what does the limited contribution to the five green belt purposes actually mean in planning terms? If they are not clear, planning inspectors will determine that, and we will yet again have more and more local opposition. It is also interesting that the Government are considering changes to restrict the right to buy. The right hon. Lady has told us very proudly how she was able to buy her own council house—[Interruption.] At least one, certainly. Can she confirm that, following these changes, young people across England will still be able to exercise the same right to buy that she had in 2007?
There is also a responsibility to address the concerns of councillors and local residents. From my own constituency, I know that the references to Traveller sites will cause some concern. The fact that the right hon. Lady has stood up and said that many of the housing allocations will be surprising will make it very difficult for local councils and local communities to deal with. Where is the respect for local decision making? We are not saying that they should not be ambitious, but they will have to take local government in hand when they do that. They say they want to impose exacting mandatory housing targets on local authorities. We had the advisory target so that councils could make sure they could do better, not worse, so it is wrong for her to claim that that was us removing mandatory housing targets. Councillors have repeatedly told me they are afraid they will be forced, under a duty to co-operate, to sacrifice their own green spaces to take the housing need that urban leaders, who are her friends, fail to meet. What will she say to reassure leaders in places like Bromsgrove, Wychavon and South Staffordshire? What penalties will she apply to local leaders like Sadiq Khan who fail to meet local housing need requirements? What happens when the mayor fails to meet even these reduced targets that she has set for him?
The right hon. Lady has already let slip that she is ditching the requirement to ensure that beauty is a key part of housing, something I was very proud that the previous Conservative Government put at the heart of our planning reforms. Local people want beautiful housing. Now she is telling us that she will be replacing what they want with a requirement to meet 1.5 million ugly houses instead. Why on earth would they take out something that means so much to local communities? People deserve to live in beautiful homes. The fact that the Labour party does not care about that shows exactly how it will develop its policies.
The Government’s responsibility to explain the economics and set out how they will fund their proposals is also key. They say they need to ensure that the NPPF has a new growth-based approach, but that is already in the NPPF. The right hon. Lady would know that if she had read it. I bet she hasn’t. The Chancellor effectively killed off some major NSIP schemes on Monday, such as the Arundel bypass. Is all the talk of prioritising energy infrastructure projects just a way of dressing up these cuts to other kinds of infrastructure? Where is the economic analysis that her Department has undertaken on the housing market? Yesterday, we all saw the Chancellor come to the Dispatch Box claiming not to have understood the pressure on public finances and how it was all so difficult. We warned repeatedly during the election that Labour says one thing and does another. It said that it was not going to raise taxes; now we can see what it is planning. The Chancellor said nothing about the impact on housing, so now I am asking the right hon. Lady, on behalf of the British people and local authorities, what it means for them. Is she going to follow the same playbook, pretending she did not know what it cost to build affordable housing, or to change the planning system and impose more costs for builders, homebuyers and renters?
Those are just a few of the questions the Government will need to answer. I am sure colleagues across the House will have many more. The Government are in danger of choosing the worst of all worlds: not addressing the basic economics of housebuilding and centralising decision making. When we look at all that, it looks like the 1.5 million homes will be a distant aspiration rather than a meaningful target.