Tenant Fees Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

On that relatively unrelated point, it is worth pointing out that when similar legislation was introduced in Scotland, we did not see any greater increase in rents than we would have anticipated.

On the specific question asked by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) about tenants’ ability to enforce and the ease of their doing so, it is worth bearing in mind that default fees are specifically required to be identified in the tenancy agreement. Up front, at the outset of a new tenancy agreement, the new tenant’s contract has to say exactly what default fees may be relevant under that contract—for example involving the loss of keys, late rent or the loss of an alarm fob. That has to be there in black and white; it is not as though the landlord can come up later on with something that they want to charge the tenant for. That will also be spelled out in the guidance, so it will be very easy for tenants to know whether the default fees they are being charged are appropriate.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am happy to give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

May I take this opportunity to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

On the point the Minister was making about redress for a tenant, does he agree that the vast majority of these problems are very easily solved by contacting the redress schemes, which are very effective at resolving any disputes that may arise? Will he clarify the point about cleaning? The cleaning of a property that a tenant has left in an inferior condition should still be the responsibility of the tenant, and that is a reasonable requirement to put into any tenancy agreement.

[Rishi Sunak]

We are very lucky to have the insights today of my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. He has been a successful business operator in this particular industry and I always listen to what he says with keen interest. I can tell him that he is absolutely right with regard to redress schemes. Our experience—we have heard this throughout the Bill process—is that they do work well and provide a very easy way to resolve most issues. Simply talking directly to the agent and the landlord in the first place is also a way to resolve the vast majority of issues without having to turn to a specific or formal redress scheme.

On the second point, of course a state of condition and an inventory may be attached to a tenancy, and such a cost would be recovered during the normal course of a deposit return. The tenant would obviously have obligations in that regard, and a breach of those terms would be considered damages in the normal way. However, there will not be a specific charging of fees at the outset of a tenancy; unless otherwise broadly agreed, that is covered by the damages provision in a contract.

I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) wanted to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

As I mentioned previously, Newham is obviously ahead of the curve, and the Committee did hear evidence about that, but many other local authorities are now following suit. Liverpool, Camden and Torbay are examples of local authorities that are getting to grips with the new legislation and putting it into effect in good order. I am pleased to say that, as these are relatively new powers, over the summer recess my Department conducted an extensive engagement activity across five different events throughout the country, involving almost 200 different local authorities, to talk specifically about the enforcement of regulations in the sector. Those conversations have sparked a lot of interesting collaboration across local authorities as they contemplate using the existing regulations and the new legislation in future. As we go forward together, with greater awareness and collaboration and, indeed, the greater funding that will come as a result of the legislation, I am confident that we will see enhanced enforcement activity from local authorities, where required.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Minister is doing an excellent job at the Dispatch Box, as always. Does he agree that another method of sanctioning landlords and agents who will not comply with reasonable regulations is through the redress process? The requirement for agents to be members of a redress scheme was introduced by our Administration in 2014. It was a seminal moment in the raising of standards in the industry. The requirement to be a member of a redress scheme, with an agreement going across the other two redress schemes, means that a practitioner can in effect be banned from the sector because they are not allowed to be a member of a redress scheme. If that idea is expanded to landlords, we will have another method of excluding from the sector people who will not do the right thing in the right way.

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clear example of an activity that is already happening that enables redress to be found. He is absolutely right to highlight the potential extension of membership of redress schemes from agents to landlords, which would further improve tenants’ ability to seek redress when they need it and would more generally act as an incentive for good behaviour in the first place. He will know that the Government are conducting a broader conversation about the regulation of estate agents, about ensuring that the industry is properly regulated and that standards are high and about ensuring that the actions of a small minority do not jeopardise the health of the great majority of the sector. That is an ongoing piece of work, and I am sure that we will discuss it in the House in due course.

As we discussed in Committee, when a tenant has paid an unlawful fee, it is only fair that they should be given a say in how those fees are reimbursed, and the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), whom I am pleased to see the in their places on the Front Bench, tabled an amendment to that specific effect. As I said I would in Committee, I have considered their amendment and agree that such a provision would be a worthwhile addition to the legislation. As such, amendments 9, 10, 12, 18, 19 and 43 will place a requirement on landlords and agents to seek consent if they wish to offset such a fee against a tenancy deposit or rent payment. I hope that those hon. Members will be happy with that incorporation.

I am pleased to say that our amendments go slightly further than the one proposed by the Opposition Front-Bench team, by also requiring agents and landlords to seek the tenant’s consent if they wish to offset the holding deposit from the tenancy deposit or a future rent payment. If the landlord or agent does not seek consent from the tenant or relevant person about how the prohibited payment or holding deposit should be refunded, they will be judged not to have fulfilled their obligation to repay the fee. That will leave the landlord or agent liable for a financial penalty and give the tenant the right to recover their fee through the relevant enforcement authority. It will also restrict the landlord’s ability to serve a section 21 eviction notice.

I have already explained why we do not support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on the default fee provision and why our proposed alternative is fairer and more workable. I wish briefly to address amendment 1, which she also tabled and which would increase the financial penalty for a breach of the ban from £5,000 to £30,000, and explain why we do not support it. We want the fine to act as a serious deterrent to non-compliance. We have listened to feedback from across the sector, and we firmly believe that financial penalties provided in the Bill are the right ones. I think that most people would agree that a £30,000 fine for an initial breach of the ban, as proposed in the amendment, would be excessive. We do not want unfairly to penalise landlords and agents who may inadvertently breach the ban on fees. In particular, that might seriously financially hurt individual landlords who, for context, collect on average rent of around £8,000 from a single properly. A £30,000 fine is almost four multiples of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s amendments. They go some way towards making the Bill much more meaningful, and we will support them. I remain, however, disappointed at the lack of movement on the requirement for deposits, which will stay at up to six weeks. I believe that that remains a significant financial barrier into the private rented sector for many people. Deposits are currently in the region of four weeks at a natural level. Allowing deposits of up to six weeks is likely to encourage more landlords or agents to increase their length and make it even harder for people to access the private rented sector.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady makes a point about the length of deposits. Does she not acknowledge that there can be different circumstances? For example, a tenant with pets may damage a property more than a tenant without pets. If we do not allow some flexibility, people in those circumstances might not be able to rent a property at all. Scotland provides a basis for many of the measures in the proposed legislation, and the length of a deposit in Scotland can be up to two months. Does she therefore not agree that six weeks is actually fair and covers more circumstances than simply keeping it at a month?

[Melanie Onn]

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s perspective. Four weeks is an acceptable deposit. Introducing the possibility of an increase to a maximum of six weeks is unnecessary, and I urge the Government to look at that again.

Before I move on to amendments 3, 1 and 2, I would like to return to a number of important issues raised in Committee that have not been addressed in the Government’s amendments. I hope that the Minister will provide more clarification on them. Perhaps they could be considered as the Bill goes through its next stages.

It is about 12 weeks since we last discussed the Bill, which is something like the timeframe that I and many of us had in mind when the Minister said in Committee that its main provisions would come into force in “a few months” after the Bill had passed. However, on her YouTube channel, “Agent Rainmaker—Letting Agent Growth”, Sally Lawson, the former president of ARLA Propertymark, tells us that the measures in the Bill will not come into force until April next year. That seemed to be a fairly definite date. Can the Minister advise the House on whether that is simply speculation, or whether it is the very earliest the Government can manage to bring forward these very important measures?

I would like further clarification regarding erroneous right to rent decisions by the Home Office and their impact on the return of a holding deposit. Will the Minister confirm that, if the Home Office makes a mistake with a right to rent check and misinforms the landlord that a tenant has failed the check, the landlord will not be liable for a financial penalty? Will he confirm that the landlord will simply be required to return the holding deposit to the tenant, as recommended by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee?

Despite the need for further clarification on those issues, I am pleased that the Government have acceded to common sense on a number of issues that we in the Opposition raised in Committee. First, I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the amendment we tabled in Committee to give tenants who are owed money following a prohibited payment a choice over how it is repaid. The original wording could have caused problems for tenants in certain circumstances. More widely, it would have contravened the principle that the money belongs to the tenant and that it is for the tenant to decide what to do with it.

Secondly, after a lot of persuasion from the Opposition, the Government are taking steps in a positive direction on their description of a default fee. It is right that it includes the definition of “reasonable” in association with costs and that there will now be a requirement to produce audits or invoices of any costs levied. Those changes will add substantial benefits to the Government’s definition of default fees and help to prevent the very worst offenders from defining unreasonable costs as a loss.

Similarly, requiring landlords or agents to provide invoices for their costs will provide greater transparency for tenants and represents a substantial shift from the Government’s position in Committee. Giving tenants an invoice allows them to account for what they are being charged and provides a platform for an appropriate challenge when the fee is considered unreasonable or prohibited. I am reassured by the Government amendments that the Minister has heard the point that simply relying on guidance, which was the initial proposal, would not be enough to prevent the continuation of tenants being overcharged. The only way to end punitive default fees, which unfortunately have turned into a cash cow for some unscrupulous landlords and letting agents, is to spell out firmly in the Bill what is and is not acceptable, rather than to rely on guidance.

Less than half of renters in this country see their deposit agreement before handing over their money, and a third have signed a tenancy agreement without fully understanding it. The Bill provides a loophole for unscrupulous landlords and agents to exploit that by placing unfair terms in their tenancy agreements. That is why I ask all Members to support amendment 3. It would provide a clear list of acceptable payments that cover a loss to the landlord. It would allow for fees to be charged only when there was a clear and indisputable cost, and it would prevent the use of tenancy agreements as a device through which to include additional charges. Although we set out a limited set of terms for permitted payments in the amendment, it would not stop landlords claiming damages or taking money out of a deposit where needed. The amendment relates only to situations where there is no dispute and there is a real, additional or exceptional cost to the landlord that falls outside usual expected business costs, such as sending a letter or email to a tenant.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Are the fair conditions in amendment 3 examples of charges that may be levied or a definitive list? One thing the hon. Lady has neglected to put in the amendment, for example, is what happens if a tenant breaks the terms of the agreement and wants to leave early or change the sharer. That can result in significant costs to a landlord or agent. Is she excluding that possibility with the amendment?

[Melanie Onn]

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The amendment would serve as an example. I would be happy for it to be adopted and then to be taken on further by the Lords. It sets out examples, rather than being a full definition of the circumstances in which a tenant could be charged.

In principle, putting in place a simple paragraph such as that in amendment 3 would make it far clearer to tenants when a breach had taken place. As it stands, the Bill will still be extremely confusing for any tenant trying to tell whether a breach has taken place. That, in turn, will inhibit the right and opportunity of a tenant to properly challenge a landlord or letting agent at a tribunal. Providing clarity on the face of the Bill would remove the ambiguity. Under amendment 3, it would be easy for a tenant to tell if they had been charged an unfair fee, and they would be better able to self-enforce their rights.

Such self-enforcement may be necessary. The Minister talked about it in very positive terms, but I am not sure it is so positive. It reinforces the point that the Bill does not carry the weight of enforcement behind it to take landlords and letting agents to task properly when they continue to break the law. For the Bill to succeed, it must be backed by sufficient enforcement power.

That is why we propose amendments 1 and 2, the primary aim of which is to allow trading councils the freedom to apply higher fines to those who break the rules. That would improve the enforcement of the Bill twofold. First, it would deter landlords and letting agents from taking the chance of applying prohibited levels of fines towards tenants. Even with strong legislation, we know that tenants can often end up in illegal renting situations owing to a lack of knowledge, a lack of confidence to challenge an unfair decision or the fear that a complaint or relationship breakdown could leave them without a house and on the street. We can see this in the Citizens Advice report “Touch and go”, which highlighted the fact that 44% of tenants did not complain about a category 1 hazard in their house.

Secondly, the Opposition are worried that unscrupulous landlords and letting agents may still be tempted to charge prohibited fees in the belief that they will not be challenged until they have taken well over £5,000 in prohibited fees, and that as a result they will see those fines as a business cost. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) pointed out, it is just the cost of doing business, rather than the real deterrent it should be. I echo his point that some of the people who local authorities have been enforcing against are not genuine, upstanding, licensed and registered, above-board landlords and agents, but criminals and crooks, and the fine of £5,000 will simply not be enough to deter them.

The Minister had concerns about the £30,000 fine, but amendment 2 states only that it “must not exceed” £30,000. That need not necessarily be the first fine—that would be for the enforcement agency to determine, given the circumstances and an understanding of the situation. Still, to provide a full deterrent would certainly increase the odds against those who take the chance and charge prohibited fees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and the passionate view of her constituents. May I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

In the absence of the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I had the honour of chairing the Select Committee pre-inquiry into this legislation. We looked at a lot of the evidence that is now coming forward. I am delighted that the Minister has seen fit to make some changes during the passage of the Bill and to accept many of the Select Committee’s recommendations.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) raised the matter of how many weeks’ rent a deposit should be. It is a shame that she has not tabled an amendment to that issue on Report, because I think several Conservative Members would feel very sympathetic towards restoring what the Select Committee recommended, which was a compromise. There was an argument for four weeks and an argument for six weeks, and we took the view that five weeks was the appropriate compromise for two reasons. First, if the limit is four weeks’ rent, there is a risk that the tenant will just refuse to pay the last month’s rent at the end of a tenancy. Secondly, a deposit of six weeks’ rent would almost certainly become the norm for most landlords, and would therefore be inflationary on the amount of deposit that would be charged.

I gently remind the Minister that in the last Budget the Chancellor allocated some £20 million towards a national rental deposit scheme, following representations from me and several other colleagues to set one up. The Department has not yet set up that scheme, but by saying that the limit will now be six weeks, instead of four or five, the Minister is going to reduce straightaway the number of families that can be assisted under the national rental deposit scheme when the Department finally does bring it forward. I ask him to look at this figure again, because it will limit the number of people who could be assisted through this programme.

On the issue of enforcement, I welcome the changes proposed by the Minister. Many of the changes, which are very clear, go above and beyond those proposed by the Opposition. Having looked at the evidence in relation to this legislation, many of us will share concerns about the difference between what I would classify as true costs, and charges. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), the key question is, who does the letting agent work for? The letting agent works for the landlord, not the tenant. It is the responsibility of the letting agent to acquire tenants on behalf of their employer—namely, the landlord—and therefore there should not be two charges incurred. The letting agent should charge the landlord for their fees, not charge the tenant for acquiring.

However, there are costs associated with acquiring a tenant—for example, when there is a requirement for a credit check. If a prospective tenant were to fail that test, there is a cost that someone has to collect. If an applicant makes a request through a letting agent and a credit check is then undertaken that is failed by the prospective tenant, it is reasonable that the cost should be passed on to that individual, particularly if they were going to knowingly fail the credit check in the first place. That is an example of a true cost as opposed to a fee charge. My hon. Friend has set out a set of areas and then a limit on the charges that a letting agent may charge a tenant. I trust that he will not press his amendment to a vote, because that goes completely against the spirit of this Bill and what we are proposing.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is making an important point on referencing. Does he agree that it might be beneficial if the Bill were clarified so that everybody was clear about circumstances in which some of the holding deposit might be retained by the landlord or the agent in the case of somebody failing a reference check? If that were not the case, people on low incomes, for example, could be discriminated against when they apply to rent a property.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We clearly need to be more specific. I accept the principle set out by my hon. Friend the Minister that we should not put this in the Bill, but it should be put in regulations, because we can change regulations rather more easily and add things to them at an appropriate time without having to go through primary legislation once again. This is a question of detail that I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at again.

The other issue is charges for, for example, lost keys, cleaning or damage that may be done to a property. Those are reasonable costs that a tenant should incur. If that has to be set out in the tenancy agreement, it must be made crystal clear in what we lay out in regulations and guidance to landlords what is allowed and what is not allowed. In particular, things that are not allowed must be specified as being completely outwith the potential of the Bill, as opposed to being in the Bill.

I thank the Minister and his team for looking at and reflecting many of the recommendations that the Select Committee made on the draft Bill. With a few more tweaks, this can be an excellent Bill that we can all be very proud of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

No, I will not give way, because I want to allow hon. Members who have not yet spoken to get in.

Why are we preventing letting agents from charging for credit reference searches, identity and passport checks, and all the rest? When one looks at the evidence in support of the Bill, it is quite clear that if the existing laws were properly enforced, the need for the Bill would not have arisen. I am extremely sceptical about the Government’s assertion that enforcement will be a lot more effective. If they really believe that, why do they not place a duty on local authorities to enforce the legislation, rather than leaving it as a mere power?

The legislation will have a lot of unintended consequences. It is already difficult enough for tenants to obtain rented accommodation if they have pets. It is very difficult for tenants on housing benefit to obtain accommodation. It is very difficult for tenants who do not have clear British citizenship to get rented accommodation. All those things will become a lot more difficult as a result of this additional burden on the private rented sector.

Some 30 years ago, I was a junior Housing Minister. I was much associated with deregulating the sector—introducing shortholds, getting rid of controlled tenancies and enabling the growth that has taken place in the private rented sector. I am disappointed to see my Government working in the opposite direction. I signed amendment 4, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. I understand that he has been bought off by the Government, so I will not press the matter to a vote. However, I think that there is too much crowd-pleasing on the part of the Government and not enough sensible regulation and recognition of the important work done by those in the private rented sector.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

This is the perfect opportunity for me to speak. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a result of which I recused myself from the Select Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. On the face of it, the Bill will cost my business more money than I wish to think about, and it is certainly keeping my finance director awake at night; we are talking about significant sums. Nevertheless, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), because we do not have a free market here. I think that it is an entirely Conservative policy to make sure that we have free enterprise and a free market.

Tenants choose properties; they do not choose letting agents. Landlords choose letting agents. Despite the cost, we should be standing up for the values of free enterprise. The business I have mentioned, which I am still involved with today, could not have been built without the opportunities provided by free enterprise, so there is no way that I could not support the Bill. I appreciate the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), but I think that even a cap is the wrong approach. We need to abolish these fees completely, as I have consistently argued to the industry.

I want to make a couple of points about free enterprise and the private rented sector. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), said that the private rented sector had increased exponentially over the past few years. When I started 30 years ago in this business, I operated in York, where the lack of supply meant that anyone who wanted to rent a home would probably get a shabby, damp, dark terraced house. It is because of private sector investment that we now have such tremendous supply in this marketplace, generally at fair rents.

I am not sure where the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds)—she is not in her place—got the figure of an 18% yield from, but that seems incredible. On that basis, there is probably a march of investors heading down the road to Oxford East to buy property. Generally, yields in the sector are very tight—about 4%, not 18%—because of the competitive nature of the market.

I support the Government amendments to ensure that any charges are clearly defined in a tenancy agreement.

[Dr Allin-Khan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am sorry; I cannot, because of the time. Many people have been here for the whole debate and want to speak.

I cannot support amendment 3, because it is restricted to two elements: a lost key, or a late rent payment. Tenants create many other costs for landlords and agents, and it is only fair that landlords and agents should be reimbursed. As an example, one tenant recently rang one of our offices late at night on the out-of-hours phone number and said that they had forgotten where they lived and asked whether we could go and pick them up and take them back home, because they had had a little bit too much to drink. That is not a typical scenario, but there are lots of different situations in which landlords and agents may incur costs. I am thinking particularly about the chasing of rent and a change of sharer, which represent significant costs to landlords. I would support a limited and fair list—and most agents will be fair.

Parking (Code of Practice) Bill (First sitting)

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Thursday 19th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Greg Knight]

I would hope that the code of practice would lead to every parking organisation behaving in a business-like and proper manner, and treating motorists fairly. One of the reasons that the Bill does not set out the code of practice is to allow wide consultation and to take into account points such as that just made by the hon. Gentleman, who is my honourable Friend. It is important that we have the widest possible consultation to ensure that the code of practice, when it is crystallised, formulated and produced by the Minister, is as wide and as comprehensive as possible.

If I could mention one other case, a pensioner mis-keyed her number plate into an automated machine when paying for her parking and got one digit wrong. On returning to her car, she discovered that the innocent mistake had resulted in a ticket. On appeal, she was able to point out that it was an honest mistake. She was also able to prove that no other car on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database had the registration number that she had keyed in. The parking company still demanded payment. In my view, the Bill is sorely needed.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

As well as examples of poor practice, does my right hon. Friend agree that there are some examples of good practice? I returned to my car last week at the car park I use when I come to London every week and, for the second time, I saw that a parking ticket was stuck to my window. I realised what I had done: I had forgotten to pay the fee when I left for London the previous Monday. I opened the plastic wrapper of the parking ticket and instead of being a parking ticket, it had a note inside saying, “Did you forget?”. So there are examples where people do the right thing. They realised that I was a regular customer of theirs.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I am grateful for that example. My hon. Friend clearly has an unknown admirer, because I doubt that happens on many occasions.

The advisory code of practice is currently being formulated. I am grateful to the Minister, because after the House gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading, he immediately started consulting on what should be in the code of practice. I have been to some of those consultation sessions to listen to what other people are saying. The code, although not yet ready for publication, is coming along very well indeed.

A summary on the code is available and has been distributed to Members. I will refer to a few aspects of it. There will be obligations on the operators of private car parks in the code, which will include the type of “equipment and technology used”, “clear signage”,

“clear and accessible displays of the terms and conditions”,

and the requirement that there be a transaction period and a grace period.

We need to ensure that a motorist has a choice before committing him or herself to park in a particular car park. With the advent of CCTV cameras, in some cases what happens is that a vehicle registration plate is recorded upon the motorist entering the car park. The motorist then sees the terms that apply to the car park and decides not to park there, but gets a ticket because the car was seen going in and coming out. That cannot be right. There must be a grace period of five or 10 minutes—perhaps even longer in a multi-storey car park—which would allow the motorist to change his or her mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I am sure everyone watching the Committee will have heard that advertisement to visit my right hon. Friend’s constituency. Near to my own as it is, I also encourage them to visit the Yorkshire Dales and the North York Moors.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

While we are on the subject of Yorkshire, as well as putting on record my thanks to APCOA Parking at York railway station for letting me off my parking ticket, I ask the Minister to join me in recognising the fantastic efforts of Malton Estate. It owns private car parks in the centre of Malton and gives two hours of free parking throughout the day. That has incentivised more shoppers to come into the town, and is one of the reasons why Malton is now Yorkshire’s food capital.

[Rishi Sunak]

I pay tribute to the car parking practices in Malton that my hon. Friend describes. It is evidence of what my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire said, which is that good, honest and fair car parking is vital for the health and wellbeing of our town centres and high streets. We all want to see it encouraged across our constituencies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I should certainly be very happy to receive any submissions from her. I think it is right that we increase the trend making authorised sites available and, at the same time, ensure that, through both local authority and police powers, enforcement and the rule of law apply to all members of our communities.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The draft national planning policy framework largely closes the loophole of viability assessments, which developers often use to avoid the requirement for affordable housing. Would the Minister consider introducing stronger compulsory purchase order powers, so that local authorities can step in and purchase sites when developers continue to refuse to meet their obligations?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know how interested my hon. Friend is in this matter. CPO powers certainly have a role to play, although they must be exercised proportionately. The review conducted by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) will enable us to look at the issue in the round.

Tower Block Cladding

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I understand the concern that the hon. Lady raises. Obviously that advice would normally come from the National Fire Chiefs Council. The London fire brigade has made that specific alteration. I will take further advice from the National Fire Chiefs Council and ensure that we report back to the House as a matter of urgency.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State share my surprise that the Hackitt review did not look in detail at the building regulations? Does he accept the need for urgent revision of the building regulations and clarity on them, particularly with regard to combustible materials, and will he set out the process and timescale for that review?

[James Brokenshire]

Dame Judith has set out a whole review of the system, end to end, and has taken a comprehensive stance. As I said in my statement last week, I intend to update the House before the summer on next steps. Knowing that certain issues will require legislation and others will not, I want to get on with it.

Tenant Fees Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Melanie Onn]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. There is absolutely no point in this House taking through legislation, as good as it is, if it cannot be enforced because it holds no weight in law.

The inclusion of a one-week refundable holding deposit, on top of a month’s rent and six weeks’ tenant’s deposit, is allegedly designed to minimise instances of tenants securing multiples of properties at the same time before finally settling on their preferred property. There has been very little, if any, evidence that this is a regular practice. Additionally, the Government say that there are a number of exceptions to that deposit having to be refunded, including when the tenant provides false or misleading information. Again, although on the face of it, that is a sensible measure, there are no additional protections for tenants if the incorrect information is not their fault. For example, a reference that does not exactly match a tenant’s claims should not immediately mean that they lose that holding deposit. There is scope to develop a mechanism to test inaccuracy and establish the reasons behind it before immediately assuming information has been deliberately misleading.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Despite the fact that I have been involved in this sector for most of my life, and am still involved, I am very supportive of the Bill and the drive to ban tenant fees. That said, on the hon. Lady’s point about holding deposits and the reference fees that tenants pay to the agent or landlord, does she not think it a reasonable concern that if we do not allow a letting agent or landlord to hold back a reasonable amount for referencing, they might be more likely to pick a better-off tenant than some of the lower-income tenants she is seeking, quite rightly, to protect? There are concerns about the commercial behaviour that could result if what she describes was to happen.

[Melanie Onn]

The point is that poorer tenants struggle the most. That is why we are trying to make the Bill as good as it can be. It comes back to reasonableness and whether there is sufficient rigour in the proposals to ensure that people are properly protected, and that goes for landlords as well.

The Government must bring back evidence during the remaining stages to convince us that this is a legitimate charge to make, rather than a simple amelioration of losses to agents and landlords. It is notable that the Government have opted to cap deposits at six weeks. The Minister should know that in practice this means all deposits will be six weeks, despite most rents being payable on a monthly basis. Shelter estimates that a six-week cap still means that London renters have to find on average a £1,800 deposit and that outside of London the figure is £1,100. Add to that one month’s rent and a week’s holding deposit, and people are looking at needing £3,750 just to secure a property in London and £2,290 elsewhere. That is a huge amount to save.

Wages are not keeping pace with rents and many people struggle to afford a decent place to live. Most low-paid workers are women. Will they be more disadvantaged by these measures than men, and what about those with disabilities, from black and minority ethnic communities or the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community? The Government have not undertaken a formal equalities assessment of the Bill. Will the Minister explain why and commit to ensuring that an assessment of the proposals is undertaken before the Committee stage? There has been an informal but not a formal process on this matter.

As I said earlier, none of the measures in the Bill will matter without their ability to be enforced. There is direction in the Bill for responsibility to lie with local authorities and their trading standards teams. The Minister will be aware that trading standards teams are currently responsible for checking on age-restricted products, agriculture, animal health and welfare, fair trading, food and hygiene standards, counterfeiting, product safety and weights and measures, and they do this despite having endured a drop in funding from £213 million in 2010 to £124 million in 2016 and a halving of their staffing capability—more in some areas.

The Chartered Trading Standards Institute has previously expressed its concern that the public are being let down in respect of its current areas of responsibility, let alone additional responsibilities—particularly ones that will not pay for themselves through the imposition of fines, which are limited to a maximum of £30,000, whose rules are not enforceable because the drafting provides too much scope for interpretation and for which the Government only plan to provide guidance rather than issue regulation to support tenants and those seeking to enforce the measures in the Bill.

Those in the private rental sector are in desperate need of clear and positive action from the Government to protect their rights. I hope we will see a strengthening of resolve from the Government as the Bill goes forward. They must not miss the opportunity to make a good Bill a great Bill, and I urge them to take this chance to make real changes that could improve this sector of our country’s housing market.

Building Regulations and Fire Safety

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to look at chapter two of the final report, which sets out a number of different steps on enforcement:

“Failure by relevant dutyholders to comply with either type of notice”—

there is a prohibition or stop notice and an improvement notice—

“would be a criminal offence.”

When he reads the report in detail, I think he will see the seriousness and robustness of Dame Judith’s recommendations and therefore the changes that need to happen.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the fact that he has gone a significant step further forward than the Hackitt review recommendations on the key issue of combustibility. In a letter to the Chair of the Select Committee, Dame Judith explains that there are two ways to work with the current guidance: either using products of limited combustibility in cladding systems or undergoing a full system test. She says her clear view is that the former

“is undoubtedly the lower risk option.”

It is therefore surprising she is not recommending that approach. However, I welcome the Secretary of State’s consultation. The issue with large-scale tests is that they do not reflect real world conditions, so we will need to consider that in the consultation. Can he confirm that the consultation will consider external cladding and insulation in terms of limited combustibility or non-combustibility?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes some powerful and important points about the nature of a system, the external cladding, how that fits within certain other structures and systems and what that actually means. That is why it is right that we look at the consultation in that way. He points to important recommendations that Dame Judith makes. Equally, she has made clear statements about what system products can and cannot be used for, how they should be developed and their use made essential. When we look at the report, both in terms of its specificity and broad nature, it points to significant change. As he rightly says, I want to consult on combustibility and get on with this.

Grenfell Tower

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and to be fair to Ministers some of them, like me and other Members, were down in Kensington very soon after the fire, and were overwhelmed by the good will there and the response of the community and the volunteers who came from all parts of the country. But Ministers were also embarrassed, as they conceded, by how poor and slow Kensington and Chelsea was from day one. I pay tribute to other councils, particularly London borough councils, that have since sent in good people to help try to get that bad council to do the job properly.

Let me turn to other tower blocks, because there are 65 local authority areas around the country with at least one block that has failed the safety test, is non-compliant, is unsafe and is unlawful. Directly after the fire, on 17 June, the Prime Minister caught the mood of the country and promised:

“My Government will do whatever it takes to…keep our people safe.”

But 11 months on, when more than 300 other tower blocks have this same dangerous Grenfell-style cladding but just seven have had it removed and replaced, things are not working.

We have thousands of families living in homes with unsafe materials tacked to the side, thousands of people buying and renting homes in these tower blocks, and others trying to sell their flats and finding that they are worthless or that their landlord turns around to them as leaseholders and says, “You’ve got to pay all the costs.”

I say to the Secretary of State that when people’s lives are at risk, it is the Government’s clearcut duty to get all suspect buildings tested and all the work done to make them safe, but that is not happening. For 11 months Ministers have refused to ensure that private block owners, not residents or leaseholders, pay for the urgent work that must be done; they have refused to release the location, ownership, and safety testing status of other high-rise blocks so that residents know where they stand; they have refused to confirm what materials are safe, meaning that landlords who have taken off cladding do not know what to put back up; and they have refused—until today, under Labour pressure—to help fund vital safety work in social housing blocks. Even now they have refused to fund what we and fire chiefs say is necessary to ensure safety: the retrofitting of sprinklers in all high-risk high-rise blocks. Only Ministers can make that happen, and the new Secretary of State has the chance to act where his predecessor would not and make good on the Prime Minister’s pledge of 17 June.

Finally, let me turn to the Hackitt review of building regulations, which is due tomorrow and has already been briefed to many people, including the press it seems.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions compelling landlords to carry out remedial work to blocks with inappropriate cladding on the outside, and I understand the imperative and rationale behind that, but where there is not a contractual obligation on the landlord to do that—where the building is occupied by long lease holders—by what mechanism would he force them to have that work carried out?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman serves on the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, and he puts his finger on an important question that only the Government can deal with. Are the powers to require testing clear? Are the powers of enforcement on landlords who will not do the right thing—will not test or will not make their building safe when it is confirmed as having suspect cladding—in place? There are question marks over that, and it is part of the action that the Secretary of State must now take. I also say to the hon. Gentleman that the principle of councils having the power to step in to take control or confiscate buildings where landlords are not doing what is required and they have had notice to do that is exactly the same principle that the Select Committee that he is a member of recommended in cases where private property owners are breaking the law and will not do what they are required to do and requested to do by local councils. The recommendation is that councils are then given the power to step in and do the work for them.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[John Healey]

I will not give way again, because of the pressure on time.

We welcomed the interim Hackitt review in December because it clearly set out the comprehensive failings in the current system of building checks and controls. The warnings were there in 2013 in coroners’ reports to Ministers after two previous fatal high-rise fires, but Grenfell, and Hackitt’s interim review, confirm that nothing less than a root and branch reform of the current failed system is required. So I am concerned by reports that the Hackitt review will stop well short of that, but the new Secretary of State has the chance in today’s debate to make clear his standards for the new rules that are needed. The Opposition know that only an end-to-end overhaul of the system will make sure that people’s homes are safe, including ensuring that only non-combustible material is used for cladding and insulation on high-rise blocks—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated assent.

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is nodding strongly in agreement with that. The overhaul must also include a ban on desktop studies, which currently allow building materials to be deemed safe without a basis in testing; full disclosure of the location, ownership and testing status of all high-rise blocks; clear powers, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, for councils to enforce testing and the work that might be required; a publicly accountable system of building control; a presumption that private block owners are, as the Government have argued, responsible for paying to replace dangerous cladding; and tougher sanctions, including the backstop power for councils to take over a block where property owners are breaking the law and putting people’s lives at risk by not making their buildings safe.

For 11 months, Ministers have been off the pace in their response to Grenfell Tower, failing to act with enough urgency on almost every front. The next month, before the anniversary of the fire, is when the Government must finally make good on their promises to the Grenfell residents and to the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely hear the point that the hon. Lady is making about the need to see families moved from temporary to permanent accommodation. We need to ensure that the necessary homes are there, and to work carefully and sensitively with the families to ensure that they are confident and comfortable with making that step. We need to be guided in part by those families, and we need to support and work with the council to do all that we can to ensure that those homes are available.

The wishes of those affected by these terrible events are also central to the ongoing public inquiry, which was debated in Westminster Hall earlier this week. On Friday, the Prime Minister announced her decision to appoint two further panel members to sit with the chairman, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, on phase 2 of the public inquiry’s work. They will help to ensure that the inquiry has the breadth of skills and expertise it requires and, I hope, provide reassurance to the bereaved, the survivors and the wider community.

The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne touched on the Hackitt review. The Grenfell fire has raised wider questions about building safety. That is why last year, my predecessor—now the Secretary of State for the Home Department—and the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), commissioned Dame Judith Hackitt to carry out an independent review of building regulations and fire safety. In December, she published her interim report. This showed that there is a need for significant reform of the regulatory system and for a change in culture in the construction and fire safety industries. The Government accepted Dame Judith’s findings and we are implementing the recommendations in the interim report that relate to us.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I sit on the Select Committee that took evidence from Dame Judith Hackitt. We had concerns about her interim findings, and we had correspondence with her following that session in which she admits, in relation to building regulations:

“There is currently a choice between using products of limited combustibility or undergoing a full-system test”.

She goes on to say that

“the former is undoubtedly the low-risk option.”

Could we even conceive of a situation in which we would not take the lowest-risk option in that regard?

[James Brokenshire]

Dame Judith will be publishing her report tomorrow. I appreciate some of the questions that have been raised with me, and the point that my hon. Friend has just made. I think it is right that we should see the report when it is published, and I intend to make a statement to Parliament to allow further questioning on it. I am conscious of the timeliness of this debate and of the need for others to participate in it.

It is essential that work should proceed at pace. To that end, we offered financial flexibilities such as additional borrowing to local authorities last year, and we have been listening to what social sector landlords have been telling us about the cost of removing aluminium composite material—ACM—cladding systems. We know that the expense involved means that social landlords are having to take decisions about how to prioritise important services, repairs and maintenance work, and new supply. That is why, as the Prime Minister announced earlier, the Government will fully fund the removal and replacement of dangerous cladding by councils and housing associations, with costs estimated at around £400 million. This will ensure that local authorities and housing associations can focus their efforts on making cladding systems safe for the buildings that they own.

Housing and Homes

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

This is why I made my point about the national planning policy framework and how it fits within the local plan structure, with which I know the hon. Gentleman will be more than familiar. We are looking carefully at the thousands of representations that have been made—as I have said, the consultation closed in the last week or so—to ensure that there is protection for the green belt.

This is equally about understanding what lies behind the slow build-out rates. Work is being done on this by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), and his report is due by the Budget this year. If he finds evidence of unacceptable land-banking, I again say that we will not hesitate to act.

Our second focus is on the facilities needed to deliver homes faster. We are making serious investments in roads, schools and communities. For this reason, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer doubled the housing infrastructure fund to £5 billion in his autumn Budget. Soon after, we announced the first initiatives of the fund. They involve 133 marginal viability fund projects worth a total of £866 million, and they have the potential to unlock up to 200,000 new homes.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making some excellent points. He referred to the requirement for local authorities to have up-to-date local plans. He might be aware that York, which adjoins my constituency, has not had a local plan since the 1950s, which has put added pressure on other local areas such as Ryedale and Hambleton. Will he commit to stepping in to write local plans for authorities that do not bring forward their plans in good time?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Local plans are central to setting out how and where local authorities expect to meet residents’ needs for new homes. He has highlighted one council that has had issues, and we will certainly be monitoring the position in York closely. If further significant delays occur, intervention will be reconsidered. We have decided that intervention will continue in three local council areas—Castle Point, Thanet and Wirral—and we will now send in a team of planning experts, led by the Government’s chief planner, to advise on the next steps in that intervention.

As I have already highlighted, this is about looking at infrastructure. That includes projects that are part of the housing packages that we have agreed with the Mayors of Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. We have launched a new, more assertive housing agency, Homes England, which will work to secure land and unlock development on brownfield sites. We are also reforming the system of developer contributions so that developers will know the contributions expected of them and local communities are clear about the infrastructure that they will get alongside new homes.

Thirdly, we want to see a wider range of house builders helping us to deliver more homes. In the past, more than 60% of new homes were delivered by small firms. Today, the number is less than half that, despite the fact that SME builders are keen to contribute. This is why we are supporting these builders to deliver and grow through our home building fund. Over 70% of the original £1 billion short-term home building fund has already been allocated to support SMEs, custom builders and innovators in helping us to deliver more than 25,000 homes. At the autumn Budget, this Government added another £1.5 billion to the fund.

It is right that we are taking action in these areas, but we must not lose sight of the basic issue of fairness. With this is mind, I was delighted that the Tenant Fees Bill was introduced to Parliament soon after my appointment. This very welcome measure delivers on our commitment to end costly letting fees, putting more money in tenants’ pockets. The Bill will also cap tenancy deposits, ensuring that the deposit that they pay at the start cannot exceed six weeks’ rent. For too long, tenants have been stung by unexpected costs such as double-charging for the same services. The Bill will put a stop to such unfair practices, and it complements other measures we have taken to make renting fairer.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

This is the Secretary of State’s first housing debate, but it is a bit like Groundhog day. He is the fourth Secretary of State, with the seventh Housing Minister, now in the ninth year of a Conservative Government, and it is clear from this debate that the Conservative party still has no plan to fix the housing crisis.

The Secretary of State may be new to the job, but he has been in government since the start in 2010. Surely he cannot look at the Government’s eight-year housing record and conclude that more of the same is what is needed. After eight years of failure on all fronts, how is the answer more of the same when, since 2010, we have seen 1 million fewer under-45s owning their own home and the lowest level of home ownership for 30 years? How can the answer be more of the same on homelessness when it has risen every year since 2010, and we now have 120,000 children growing up with no home? And how can the answer be more of the same when private renters face rents that are soaring way ahead of incomes? The average rent is now £1,800 a year more than before.

Finally, house building rates are still lower than they were at their peak under Labour, and fewer new social rented homes were started last year than at any time since records began.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that last year’s figure of 217,000 additional homes is the second highest in the past 25 years. Completion levels have risen 30% and starts have risen 85% from their low points under Labour. He must welcome those increases in activity in the housing market.

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is a hard-working, loyal Back Bencher, and I have to give him credit. He is making some of the same arguments the Secretary of State made when he said the Government are making good progress on supply. In truth, a full decade on from the worldwide financial crash, house building is still below the level it was before that global downturn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I am glad that this is a general debate on housing, because it allows me to draw attention to the different directions of policy throughout the UK and the results of these policies. The UK Government have said that they want to reassure voters that they are taking the housing crisis seriously, yet the facts suggest the very opposite. I was actually quite happy to hear the Secretary of State say that the Government are looking into the Housing First scheme, which I believe was developed in Finland, and is about providing people with security and stability as a starting point. That seems like a step in the right direction, but again the facts show a different story. House building has fallen to its lowest level since the 1920s, evictions are at record levels, and a mere one in five council homes has been replaced when sold.

Crisis says that 9,100 people are sleeping rough across Great Britain at any one time. We see homeless people all the time. Quite often we pass them coming into work, at Portcullis House and the underground station. Crisis has said that unless there is a significant shift in Government policy, the number of rough sleepers is projected to increase by 76% in the next 10 years. When it surveyed councils for its report, “The homelessness monitor: England 2018”, it found that 70% said that they had difficulties in finding social housing for homeless people last year. It is important to stress that homelessness does not just mean rough sleeping, as I know that many Members are aware. It includes people staying with friends and family, and people living in overcrowded conditions or in poor conditions that affect their health.

In their manifesto for the general election, the Tories included a flagship pledge to build a new generation of social housing. Everybody knows that this is something the UK is crying out for, yet within weeks of the election the Government U-turned on that pledge.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady said that house building had fallen to its lowest level since the 1920s, yet in 2008-09 new housing starts were 88,000 and last year they were 163,000. Where does she get her figures from?

[Mhairi Black]

Hold on and I will tell you. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Gentleman say, “From the Labour party manifesto”? Actually, they were from an article in The Independent. I will be happy to send it to him.

What adds another layer of incompetence and complication to all this is that there seems to be total denial on the Government’s part as to the further negative impacts that universal credit is having on the housing crisis. A report this month from the Scottish Government has shown that in East Lothian, for example, 72% of social housing tenants claiming universal credit were in arrears, compared with 30% of all tenants. Similarly, any action to tackle barriers to landlords offering longer and more secure tenancies has been kicked into the long grass, with the Government instead announcing yet another consultation to add to the 15 already ongoing consultations relating to the private rented sector.

The Scottish Government are taking a different ideological and political direction in the areas where they can. The SNP scrapped the Thatcherite right-to-buy policy, freeing up thousands of homes from falling into private rented properties, and we have at least attempted to put back in place some safeguarded housing stock for future generations. Since 2007, we have built more homes per head than in England and Wales—48,000 more than England’s rate, equating roughly to a town the size of Paisley. The Scottish Government have now delivered nearly 71,000 affordable homes since 2007. But we decided that that still was not good enough, so when we set a target of wanting 30,000 affordable homes by 2021, we decided, no, we are going to increase that to 50,000. We know the kinds of pressures that we are putting on ourselves, but, as we are all aware, this issue desperately needs the attention of Governments.

The Scottish Government are attempting to do all this while being saddled with paying £453.8 million in mitigating the effects of and protecting people from the very worst of Tory austerity. The Scottish Government fund the full mitigation of the bedroom tax, which would otherwise affect over 70,000 individuals who would lose an average of about £650 a year. If this is the good that the Scottish Government are able to do under intense pressure, often through no fault of our own, let us imagine what good the UK Government could do if they just made a simple change in direction.

Grenfell Update

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and questions, but may I first say to her that, with respect, I think she is a bit confused about the numbers? For example, when she refers to households that need rehousing, I think that she is confusing individuals with households. She is confusing residents of Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk with residents of the wider estate. She is also confused on the number of properties available. She made comments about the quality of properties. Rather than just talking about the quality of properties, I invite her to actually investigate by going to see some of those properties.

The hon. Lady talks about the truth and suggests that the truth is not out there. That is a very unhelpful comment, if I may say so, for the people who have been affected by this tragedy. She should be seeking to provide them with information and facts. She should respect that this is a report from an independent taskforce: it is not from the Government; it is not from the council. The taskforce meets members of the community regularly to do its work and it is completely independent. I hope that she can come to respect the work of the taskforce and see what it is doing. I would be very happy to write to her in more detail, especially on the numbers issue.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, for his admission that things were not right at the start, and for his commitment to putting them right. He mentioned the interim review into building regulations and fire safety. In correspondence with the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, Dame Judith Hackitt accepted that the lowest-risk option, which is not in her review, is a simple requirement for insulation and cladding to be of limited or no combustibility. Does the Secretary of State not agree that we must now adopt the lowest-risk option if we do not want this kind of tragedy ever to happen again?

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my hon. Friend for the interest he has taken in this issue ever since the tragedy, as well as for his work on the Select Committee. He makes a good point about some of the types of changes that could be made. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the outcome of Dame Judith Hackitt’s inquiry, but I have listened very carefully to what my hon. Friend has said.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)]

We are having wide discussions with all Departments across Government consulting on the UK’s shared prosperity fund, which, crucially, in a post-Brexit world, will deliver on Britain’s priorities when it comes to local growth funding.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

T8. A recent report by the Campaign to Protect Rural England says that viability assessments favour large developers over small developers and cut the number of affordable homes by 50%. Will the Minister take the strongest possible action to make sure that small and medium-sized enterprises compete on a level playing field with large developers, and that developers provide homes for those most in need?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and through our planning reforms we are putting far more rigour into the system so that plans are clear about the obligations expected for infrastructure and affordable houses, and also so that developers can be properly held to account in meeting those aspirations and commitments.