Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Written Corrections

[Sir Liam Fox]

The issue of rent charges also applies to freeholders; it is not just leaseholders who are the victims. An amendment to the Rentcharges Act 1977 would deal with the problem once and for all, so I encourage my hon. Friend to look at amendments to that Act when we bring forward legislation on this subject. If the Government do not want to bring forward such an amendment to the 1977 Act, I would be more than happy to table one.

[Lee Rowley]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are impacts on both freeholders and leaseholders. Different types of property and tenure are impacted in different ways. Elements of the rent charges regime will be extinguished by the 1977 Act, which he rightly referenced, in 2033; that has been in law since before I was born.

[Official Report, 15 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 400.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley):

[Lee Rowley]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are impacts on both freeholders and leaseholders. Different types of property and tenure are impacted in different ways. Elements of the rent charges regime will be extinguished by the 1977 Act, which he rightly referenced, in 2037; that has been in law since before I was born.

Gypsy and Traveller Sites

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for securing the debate and for giving us the opportunity, even for just a few short minutes, to talk about these important issues. Most importantly, I thank him and his colleagues for the kindness they showed me when I visited Northamptonshire a couple of months ago to talk about this issue at his invitation. He works closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) and I was grateful for the attention, support and explanation given by many of the parish councils in my hon. Friends’ area. They came to the meeting, giving us the opportunity to go through this in the detail it deserves. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering for the debate and for that opportunity a couple of months ago to talk about the issue in detail.

As with all issues of planning, I have to put a caveat on the front of my remarks: I am not able to talk about specific local plans, specific local planning applications or, indeed, enforcement action against those planning applications. As right hon. and hon. Members are aware, planning Ministers have a quasi-judicial role in the planning system, and must therefore reserve comments on any individual application, in case that needs to be exercised. I know that my hon. Friend is not asking me for information, or for my thoughts, on individual applications, but seeking to articulate his concerns about the policy in general, which I will focus on.

This area of policy is obviously sensitive. It has been debated reasonably today, in the short time that we have had, but we can see the contours of a broader debate where people take, legitimately, different views. I will try to choose my words carefully, and it may be that I am not able to go as far as I might otherwise wish to in certain areas, but I hope that it demonstrates that I am engaging in the issue. I will say more when I am able to in future. I should put on the record that I have historical experience in my constituency of challenges in this part of planning policy, so I am aware of it from the perspective of North East Derbyshire.

In essence, we are debating three questions today: first, planning for suitable provision of sites for those in the travelling community; secondly, ensuring that the application process for agreeing those sites is done in a fair, transparent and open manner; and, thirdly, if that is not the case—as is the principle across every policy, intervention, change or action that is done by anyone out there, irrespective of the planning system—and enforcement is to be taken, what is proportionate and reasonable to do.

[Andy Slaughter]

On that issue of site availability, I recommend the Friends, Families and Travellers report to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), “Kicking the can down the road: The planning and provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites in England 1960-2023”. It explains the lack of site provision, which is at the root of the judgment in Smith yesterday that led to the declaration of incompatibility. The Minister has now had 24 hours to consider the judgment and I wonder about the Government response. They will have to deal with the issue—and the law at the moment—which stems from the fact of discrimination, with certain parts of the criminal law being impacted where there is not sufficient site provision in a particular area at the moment.

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and he tempts me to comment on a very recent legal case but, with the leave of the House, I will reserve comment on that judgment while my colleagues review it. I will not comment specifically on the outcome of the case, as I am sure he understands.

I will quickly set out the position and then give a few comments on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering. The Government set the legislative and policy framework—we have talked about it today —within which this area of policy operates, including the NPPF, or national planning policy framework, and the PPTS, or planning policy for Traveller sites. Despite the variance between the two policies, as articulated by colleagues, local planning authorities are responsible for plan preparation and have a duty to make planning decisions in accordance with the development plans that they have adopted. The planning policy for Traveller sites should be read in conjunction with the NPPF, and there is the requirement to provide a “robust evidence base” for the actions that are taken by individual planning authorities when they are preparing for them.

We all recognise, because we spend a lot of time in debates like this, that whether it is about this area of planning policy or any others, no area of planning policy is perfect. The question is how we balance the many different competing interests in the most appropriate way. There are always challenges, even in areas that are not contested, and this is obviously a relatively contested area. The question is how we ensure fairness in that discussion.

To the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering about fairness, it is about trying to work out how we balance that. I accept and agree that that is an open question, and it is perfectly legitimate and appropriate for us to come back and look at those issues on a very regular basis, which is something that we try to do across planning. I will continue to do that within this area of planning, which is why I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for having hosted me and officials a few months ago to articulate the challenges experienced in Northamptonshire.

I absolutely welcome the views and thoughts of Members across the House about both the planning policy elements, such as the local plans and whether they work, and whether the planning application process for Travellers works. My hon. Friend has put on record many of his comments today, which is very helpful, but I would welcome any further comments from other Members present.

It is the case, and I think it is important to reiterate, that the number of pitches provided in this country has substantially increased over my lifetime. In 1979, it was fewer than 10,000, and it is now 25,000 according to the latest count. There is a substantial increase in provision and it is important that discussions like this do not miss that point out. The question is, building on that increase in provision, where the logical extent is of where we need to go and what provision we need to require local authorities to provide for. That is why I would welcome comments from colleagues across the House, whether they are positive or negative, on the impact in their areas. When we are thinking about that, as when we are thinking about all elements of planning policy, we can consider that in the round when we bring ideas and proposals forward.

I recognise that I have just under three minutes left, but my hon. Friend talked about enforcement, and that is a hugely important area of policy, as he has highlighted. I do not lead on that part of the discussion, but I will certainly pass back the comments that he has made to my colleagues in the Home Office. As my hon. Friend indicated, some movement and some progress has been made—although I know he had comments about that—in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which became law last year. That removed the four-year time limit for taking action against some of the breaches in planning control, and it doubled the time when stop notices are effective from 28 to 56 days. We will return to the point that, when there is intentional unauthorised development generally along the lines of what my hon. Friend has articulated, that should be a material consideration when considering where the position has ended. We are committed to consulting on that and on how we implement it in the future within the broader policy framework.

I have less than two minutes left, but this is a very big area of policy. It is highly contested and it is one, from a Government perspective, where I think it is absolutely right that we tread carefully with our words and consider this in round. I absolutely acknowledge that there are strong views across the House on all these areas, and I also acknowledge that there are experiences in parts of the country that are really challenging at the moment. That is one of the reasons why I am keen to hear views from all colleagues over the course of the months ahead. It is why I am really keen to understand the suggestions of any colleagues about how we make progress, building on that significant increase of pitches that has occurred over my lifetime and recognising that we need to look at the issue in the round.

I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend’s comments on enforcement to the Home Office, and I look forward to continuing discussions with colleagues from across the House on this in future. We need to look at how we get this policy right, how we understand it and how we respond to some of the rightful challenges that have been set, while recognising that there is a balance that always needs to be struck here. It is about learning from experiences and working out how policy can be iterated and amended over the long term to ensure that it makes progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Leaseholders and Freeholders

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

It is a great pleasure to respond in this short debate, and to talk about an issue of huge importance to so many colleagues around the House. Over the past few months, as we have talked about leasehold, more and more colleagues have come up to me to highlight the iniquities, problems and challenges that they see in their constituency. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) for highlighting the issues that he has experienced, and I am very sorry to hear about Port Marine and the challenges that its residents face. I obviously cannot comment too much on individual cases, but it is absolutely vital that we hear individual examples. I have heard examples from around the country of particularly egregious extortion, and problems with the framework of leasehold. That is one of the reasons why we are bringing forward leasehold reform—because we recognise that there needs to be change.

Leasehold can work in some places, and some elements of it can be successful, but as my right hon. Friend has outlined, the problem is that there is too much bad practice in the sector. There are too many distortions within that tenure, too many inefficiencies that can be exploited, and frankly too many rent-seekers in the sector who are trying to exploit those distortions and inefficiencies. I know that Opposition colleagues also feel strongly about this issue, but we Conservatives are nothing if we do not seek to smash monopolies, stop rent-seeking, make markets more perfect and stand up for the little guy. Stories such as the one that my right hon. Friend recounted today highlight the reason why we are reforming leasehold. There is a way to go in making that market more perfect, but that is exactly what we are trying to do.

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill will bring into law many reforms to better protect and empower leaseholders. Existing leaseholders will find it easier and cheaper to extend their lease or buy their freehold. Reforms to the cost regime for enfranchisement and right-to-manage claims will make them more accessible, enabling leaseholders to take control of their building and, therefore, their future.

[Sir Liam Fox]

The issue of rent charges also applies to freeholders; it is not just leaseholders who are the victims. An amendment to the Rentcharges Act 1977 would deal with the problem once and for all, so I encourage my hon. Friend to look at amendments to that Act when we bring forward legislation on this subject. If the Government do not want to bring forward such an amendment to the 1977 Act, I would be more than happy to table one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are impacts on both freeholders and leaseholders. Different types of property and tenure are impacted in different ways. Elements of the rent charges regime will be extinguished by the 1977 Act, which he rightly referenced, in 2033; that has been in law since before I was born. However, there are a number of other issues that need addressing, and the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill was introduced to address some of them. A whole range of reforms are necessary across the leasehold sector, and the Bill seeks to address that, but as my right hon. Friend outlined, there are two main issues that this discussion of Port Marine has highlighted: the variable service charge, and the rent charge point, which he just spoke about a little more.

The Bill as it stands will absolutely make progress on variable service charges in a number of ways. It will not fix what has happened in the past, but it absolutely seeks to minimise the chance of it happening again. Unjustified increases in variable service charges are not acceptable. Any service charges must be transparent and communicated effectively, and there should be a clear route for challenging them if things go wrong. The Bill ensures that all leaseholders will receive: key minimum financial and non-financial information regularly, including a standardised service charge demand form; an annual report of charges; the timely provision of service charge accounts; and the right to obtain other relevant information. That is a significant step forward, as I know from discussions with both leaseholders and freeholders in my constituency, and from having spoken with colleagues from all around the House who have similar issues. We are also taking measures on service charges to ensure that leaseholders are not subject to unjustified legal costs. For the first time, they can, when appropriate, claim their costs from landlords if they go through the tribunal process and win. There will be a significant change on variable service charges as and when the Bill passes through both Houses.

On fixed rent charges, the Bill introduces a framework to empower homeowners and to hold estate management companies to account for the service they provide. There will need to be transparency of information. There will be a new legal requirement that estate management charges must be reasonable. For the first time, there will be an ability to challenge excessive costs through the tribunal, and to ensure that estate management companies are held to account. The measures will also cover admin fees, including deeds of variation—my right hon. Friend highlighted that point. As I say, there will for the first time be a right to apply to the tribunal for redress. If there is a strong view, and proof, that the managing agent in charge is doing something inappropriate or is not fulfilling their duty, people can apply to a tribunal to have a substitute manager appointed. That will for the first time provide an opportunity for residents to highlight problems, and remove people who consistently cause problems.

As I said in Committee, we recognised in Committee and from previous debates in the House the strength of feeling among colleagues; that has been shown again by my right hon. Friend in this debate, and by the contributions of other hon. Members. We are considering further whether we can look at this area in more detail. I hope that I can soon say more from the Government Front Bench about that, although I cannot do so tonight.

To conclude, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issues in this case and to highlight the key challenges that we see daily to do with when this system does not work. He raised how and when this system is not working for Port Marine. I hope there is restitution, and that a solution comes as soon as possible. I recognise the individual examples of when things are not working, but the Government are taking action, in a very Conservative way, recognising that we have to deal with these monopolies, smash the rent-seekers and remove distortions to make markets more perfect. We must ensure that there will not be another Port Marine in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time. When the Bill goes through, we will significantly improve this market and leasehold, and significantly change rent charges, so that people who want to buy their house and have the benefits of owner-occupation—we want to do all we can to empower people —gain real control over their future. We look forward to colleagues supporting the Bill as it goes through its final stages in the House in the coming weeks.

Question put and agreed to.

Substandard Housing

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

This is a very important issue and one on which the House should rightly spend time. Poor quality homes are a blight on the lives of those who live in them, with the potential to significantly damage people’s health. That in turn means that people cannot live as fulfilling a life as they would wish and, from an economic perspective, that they might not be able to be as productive as they would want. It even extends to social mobility. It is a long-standing mission of all parties to try to make homes warm, safe and decent.

Tonight, we are discussing both substandard housing in general and, due to the hon. Member raising it, Rochdale in particular. As has been outlined, Rochdale was the scene of a great tragedy in 2020, with the death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak—the death of someone who had his whole life ahead of him. It was one of the worst tragedies in a modern civilised world—the death of a child.

The law already requires landlords to ensure that the accommodation they provide is free from serious hazards, including damp and mould, and that homes are fit for habitation, but as was seen in Rochdale four Decembers ago, some are failing to meet that basic standard. Following that tragedy, the Secretary of State was clear that it was unacceptable. He summoned the landlord, Rochdale Boroughwide Housing, to explain why such a catastrophic failure had been allowed to happen.

The Secretary of State followed up by barring that housing association from access to funds to build new houses, and by stepping up enforcement measures more generally. More broadly, the Government introduced Awaab’s law in 2023, requiring landlords to investigate and then fix reported health hazards within specific timeframes; to issue written summaries of their investigations to ensure that residents are kept informed; and, where necessary, to offer suitable alternative temporary accommodation to tenants where the property cannot be made safe.

The next step in making that legislation real occurred at the start of this year, with a consultation that opened in mid-January. It closed a few weeks ago, and we plan to respond to it shortly and introduce the necessary secondary legislation as soon as possible. In addition, the Government provided £15 million of taxpayer subsidy to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority in 2023 to tackle the worst cases of damp and mould, which includes works to many properties in Rochdale.

On a broader level, it is very important that enforcement bodies use the powers available to them where it is proportionate and necessary to do so—something that can already happen today. That is against the backdrop of progress that has been made. I do not seek in any way to take away from the importance of the subject that has been highlighted, or from the terrible tragedy that has been rightly brought to this House both now and before, but it is hugely important that we also acknowledge where we are. There has been progress on this very important matter of policy in recent years across all tenures.

There are two big measures within the English housing survey, one about category 1 hazards and one about the decency of the homes that people live in. Both have seen progress. First, the number of owner-occupied properties in England in 2010 where category 1 hazards were present was over 18%. By 2022, that had been halved. For the private rented sector, the issue had been halved over the same timeline from 24% to 12%. In the social rented sector, it was 10% in 2010; by 2022, it had reduced to 4%.

On decent homes specifically, in 2010 the percentage of non-decent homes in the owner-occupied sector was more than a quarter—25.6%. By 2022, that had almost halved to 13.7%. For the private rented sector, it was nearly 40%; it has now reduced to just over 20%. In the social rented sector, it was almost 20%; now, it is just over 10%. That is progress, improvement and movement, but there is obviously more to do.

The Government have previously announced their intention to update the decent homes standard, and we are working on doing so. We continue to work closely with local authorities and housing providers to try to make progress in this important area, and the ombudsman continues to show leadership in its work on this vital agenda.

There has been movement forward in the last decade, but the focus needs to be continued, not least to ensure that we learn from the tragedy of Awaab Ishak and what others may be suffering from now. This issue is bigger than any one Government. That is why there was progress under the last Government, which the hon. Member served in, why there has been progress in all the Parliaments that he has sat in, and why there is a continued commitment to that. Progress has been made, but there is still further to go. We shall continue to work with resolve and determination to ensure that improvements are made.

Question put and agreed to.

Affordable Homes Guarantee Scheme 2020: Expansion

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

Today, I have laid before Parliament a departmental minute setting out the details of a contingent liability that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities intends to incur under the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012. By expanding the capacity of the existing affordable homes guarantee scheme 2020 from £3 billion to £6 billion, the Department increases its capacity to create contingent liabilities.

The expanded affordable homes guarantee scheme—announced at the autumn statement 2023—will continue to be delivered by ARA Venn on behalf of the Department under the oversight of Homes England. The delivery partner has been managing the scheme since 2020 and was appointed through a fair, open and competitive procurement process. Contracts for the management of the expanded scheme have now been signed with the delivery partner and the expanded scheme opened for business on 12 February 2024. In delivering the scheme, the delivery partner will raise capital from bond market investors and on-lend the proceeds to registered providers of affordable housing in England. The Department will guarantee both the principal and interest cash flows to investors.

Through the scheme the Government will continue to boost investment in providers of affordable housing and support the delivery of a significant number of new affordable homes for those whose housing needs are not currently met by the market. The expansion will support a further 4,000 new homes, bringing the total estimated number of new homes supported by the scheme to 27,000. The expansion also allows eligible spend to include upgrading existing housing stock, increasing the scope of the scheme to include retrofit, decency, and building safety. This will support registered providers to meet the decent homes standard, as well as their net zero obligations, alongside developing new homes.

This expansion sits alongside the Government’s wider set of policies to support affordable housing, including our flagship £11.5 billion affordable homes programme as well as the investment of billions of pounds in infra- structure to support the delivery of new homes since the start of this Parliament through schemes including the £4.2 billion housing infrastructure fund and the £1 billion brownfield, infrastructure and land fund. Collectively, these schemes will deliver tens of thousands of new homes and unlock tens of billions of pounds in private investment.

[HCWS451]

Miners and Mining Communities

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

It is genuinely a great pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government in this important area of policy. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I welcome the focus on this issue. I congratulate the all-party parliamentary group, its current chair, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and all those who are involved, or who have previously been involved, for raising these issues. We might not agree on all elements, but across the House we all agree that this is an important subject that we need to debate.

I particularly welcome the debate because I also have the privilege of representing a coalfield seat, North East Derbyshire, the home of Ireland, Williamthorpe, Renishaw Park, Hartington and Park House, where, just a century ago, tens of thousands of men worked. Many colleagues have outlined their experiences today; it is a privilege to know that our ancestors went down those pits every single day. I agree with the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) that this work was tough and dangerous. Not a single member of my family, or any of the people I have had the privilege of representing for seven years, has failed to remind me how difficult mining was. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members have had similar conversations.

Eckington drift mine, the last drift mine in my constituency, closed only five years ago. Contrary to what we heard in some contributions, in my constituency we regularly celebrate our mining legacy, from the recent openings of memorials for High Moor and Westhorpe collieries, from Pat Bone’s work at the Killamarsh Heritage Society to attending a remembrance service for the terrible loss of 17 souls in 1973 Markham colliery disaster. In a few weeks, I hope, with my family, to add my ancestors’ names to the Eckington mining memorial, which Paul Burdett and his team have so kindly put in one of the towns in North East Derbyshire.

As the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) indicated, my family was also deeply steeped in this legacy, going back around 10 generations. As far back as the censuses go, we were miners or hewers. My mum’s maiden name is literally Collier. Both my grandfathers worked down the mines, including my mum’s dad who worked for a time at Westthorpe and High Moor in the area that I now have the privilege to represent. Like so many of the people there, both of their lives were cut short. I managed to know my maternal grandfather for only seven years before he died of the injuries that he had suffered down the pit in the 1940s, including losing a limb. I never knew my other grandad—he died seven years before I was born. So I share the acute sense of link with this and agree that this is an area in which we need to do more.

When I speak from this Dispatch Box, I do so with great pride on behalf of mining communities and my own family, but it is pride tinged with a little bit of sadness. I am afraid that I was not intending to talk about this, but I think that it is important that I do so. I do not particularly want to bring party politics into this, but I think that party politics has already been brought into this quite significantly over the course of this debate.

Many strong points have been made today by colleagues across the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) that, at times, CISWO does not discharge what we all hope it would do, and I shall certainly pass that back to my colleagues in the relevant Department. I agree with most Members who said that there is more to do. I am interested in the concern of the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) about the quality of coal, which I shall take up with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade and ask them to look at that in further detail—as much as they are able to do so.

However, I do think that some of the language has been genuinely loose today. The hon. Member for Wansbeck talked about opposing absolutely everything that the Conservative party does. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) talked about things being “callous”, or about how the Government chooses “destruction”. The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) talked about “indifference”. There is a place for rhetoric and a place for hyperbole—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lee Rowley]

I am absolutely not going to take any interventions. I have listened to the grievances of Opposition Members for three hours, and it is now time for them to hear the alternative.

Labour does not own the story of mining in our country. Labour does not get to reset the narrative in the way that it has sought to do today. The hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) talked about a Government of empathy. Labour does not get to disregard the settled pension arrangements—arrangements defended by the Labour party for 13 years when they sat on the Government Benches. In 2008, when the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—he was in his place a moment ago—was in charge of his Department, junior Ministers were sent out to answer written questions to that effect. Labour does not get to reset the agenda on that. It certainly does not get to repeatedly let down mining communities for decades, to the extent where those communities—

[Stephanie Peacock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I will not give way. I have listened for three hours to the Labour party’s grievances.

Labour does not get to set the narrative, having let down mining communities for 13 years, to the extent that those mining communities send to this place people such as myself and many of those who are sitting behind me right now. People come up to us and say that we have done more in four years than the Labour party managed in 40. Labour does not get to reset that agenda.

Today, so many Labour Members have rightly drawn on their community’s history as part of their speeches, just as I am doing, and I shall draw a little bit more on mine. I want to refer in particular to one of my predecessors who sat in this place for North East Derbyshire—but not my Benches. He joined this place not as a member of the Labour party, but he was a former executive member of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain. He built his career in mining. I will pass his statue when I go home today. He did not join here as a Labour Member, but he felt forced to join the party because he was a miner. In the end, though, he left the Labour party. That is a story of our times in these communities Our mining heritage is shared; it is not party political. I yield to no one in this place when it comes to the proud legacy that mining has provided for my community and my family; it is not just owned by one group of us here. That is why we turn now to some of the points that have been raised.

Many Members have talked about levelling up. I accept that there is more to do in that area. We have always indicated that levelling up is a long-term initiative that will take time to work, but at least this Government have made progress.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Lady had many minutes in which to set out her view, and now I will respond to it.

The hon. Member for Easington talked about the Government continuing to undermine the local community, choosing to invest elsewhere. The hon. Member for Pontypridd said that, sadly, levelling up was just a slogan. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) talked about it being a con. Well, let us list a few levelling- up projects. Let us pick some areas totally at random. Shall we pick Easington, covered by the north-east investment zone? Across the county, the share from the UK shared prosperity fund has been £31 million, with £750,000 for the town accelerator fund. Let us pick St Helens. From the English city regional capital regeneration funding there has been £7.2 million for St Helens manufacturing, £25 million for a town deal, and a long-term plan for towns, covering Newton-le-Willows.

The hon. Member for Barnsley East wishes to speak again. Barnsley has received a share of £39 million from the UK shared prosperity fund—[Interruption.]— £10 million for Barnsley Futures, £500,000 for a town accelerator and a future high streets fund of £15.6 million. What about the hon. Member for City of Durham? Durham has had £281,000 for Redhills Revealed through the community ownership fund, and a share of £31 million from the UK SPF. What about the hon. Member for Wansbeck? Wansbeck has received £16 million for town centre regeneration in Ashington, a share of £31 million from the UK SPF, and from the north-east investment zone a share of £47 million.

The hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) said that Government support never comes—except it did come, with a levelling-up partnership, £6 million for the future high streets fund, and £20 million for the South Shields riverside transformation. What about the hon. Member for Pontypridd? Pontypridd received £5 million from the levelling-up fund, and £14 million for the A4119 dualling scheme. What about the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty? Selby received a share of £17 million from the UK SPF. What about the hon. Member for Llanelli? There has been £15 million for regenerating Llanelli. The list goes on and on. [Interruption.]

The reason Opposition Members do not want to hear this is because their narrative does not work. Mining communities have had a significant amount of attention from this Government—[Interruption.]—and I am extremely proud to represent a mining community. Where were we left after that heat rather than light? This is a very important subject, which we share in. Even though I have had to set the record straight on a number of areas, there were some genuinely useful contributions. There is a need to remember, but not to dwell, because the mining community that I have the privilege to represent wants to look forward, not back. It wants to celebrate its history, but to be known for its potential, opportunity and renewal. The past is what we inherit, but the future is what we build. It is the future that this Government will continue to build, to ensure that mining communities such as mine, and everybody’s in this place, continue to prosper and thrive.

Chatham Docks Basin 3 Redevelopment

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Philip. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) on securing this debate. I thank her for the opportunity to be able to talk—in the limited way that I am able to—about the importance of the Medway towns, and getting planning right in them and in her constituency of Rochester and Strood over the years ahead.

My right hon. Friend is a huge advocate for her constituency. We have spoken on a regular basis since I have taken this portfolio, so I know how strongly she rightly feels about ensuring planning is as right as it can be in the area. She strongly advocates for her constituents and for how important it is to get planning right. As the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) indicated, it is now Labour members who have the opportunity to make progress with those specific local plans. Given their variation of views in the last few months alone, that does not bode well. However, we wish them well, because we all want them to get it right, and we hope that they will do so, even if their current record does not indicate that this is very likely.

The speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood highlighted not only what a strong advocate she is for her constituency but the huge importance of this issue from a historical perspective. She talked about her background and those of many of her constituents in the area. As someone who shares that link with my constituency, I know how important it is that representation is brought to this place, and my right hon. Friend did that in this debate, as well as in others before.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood appreciates, and as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich indicated, there are limits to what I can say. There are some things that I can say and some I cannot. The Secretary of State and Ministers in the Department have a quasi-judicial role within the planning system, which means there is the potential for all planning applications to come to us for final decision, so it is both inappropriate and incorrect for us to talk about individual planning applications. Thus, I am unable to talk about the specifics of the planning application today. I know that my right hon. Friend knows that and appreciates the point I am making.

When I have had debates like this in my constituency, I used to be frustrated by that answer, but it is a necessary one and one that we must honour to ensure that we do not prejudice anything that may come in the future. None the less, I hope I can say a few things about the general position and about planning. In order to enter them into the record, I will say a few things about the national planning policy framework, and the overall framework, not least because the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has made a number of assertions, which I will come on to in a moment.

The Government set the legislative and policy framework, including the NPPF, within which the planning system operates. Local planning authorities, as has been outlined today, are responsible for preparing a plan, then for making decisions that align with that plan. In doing that, they interpret the national policy and guidance, which is primarily generated through the NPPF, within the legislation and then according to local circumstances.

The stated and avowed purpose of the planning system in this country is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development that considers economic, societal, social and environmental objectives. Planning policies and decisions should play an active role in guiding developments towards sustainable solutions, but they must and should take into account local circumstances and reflect the local character, needs and opportunities of each area. We recognise that Rochester and Strood is very different from North East Derbyshire, as it is from Chipping Barnet and from Greenwich and Woolwich, which is why it is correct that local politicians lead planning within a broad national framework that the Government of the day set out.

We have talked in much of this debate about the importance of economic development and about protecting commercial activity. The NPPF also sets out the importance of planning for economic development. Planning policies and decisions should help to create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. That is why the NPPF states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support growth and productivity, taking account of both business needs and wider opportunities for development. As hon. Members have outlined, the NPPF was last revised in December 2023 following a consultation process. The changes that we made try to support our objectives of creating a planning system that delivers the new homes we need while taking into account the important areas, assets or local characteristics that should be protected or respected.

[Theresa Villiers]

One of the important changes in the new NPPF is the affirmation that councils should not be forced to build at densities that are significantly out of character with the surrounding area. Can the Minister tell the House how that is operating in practice and what difference it is making to developments such as the one we are debating today and others around the country?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question. As she rightly outlines, we made a number of changes to the NPPF, including one to indicate that the character of an area is important to consider within any future local planning. As she will appreciate, local plans often take several years to come through, so we revised the framework a number of months ago. We have been clear that councils should seek to move quicker when they need to. We have asked a number of councils to provide timetables for getting to the endpoint, and we will closely monitor what is happening in the months ahead not just on the point about character, which is important, but on the other changes that we made. We made changes about the potential for local councils to look at alternative methods to assess their needs, the importance of beauty within a system, support for small sites and community-led developments, and greater protections for agricultural land. One of the reasons for the debate today is that, as we all know, the planning system is not perfect, but trying to balance all those individual areas is important.

As a constituency MP who went through an extremely difficult time with local planning a number of years ago—down to the Labour party, which failed our area for many years because it was too unwilling, unable and incompetent to ever put a local plan in place, creating over 1,000 more houses than was necessary—I have seen the pain caused by not doing local plans in a timely manner. I know how important it is to think through the implications that plans have for the local community and the consequences of not making decisions. I appreciate the points made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for Rochester and Strood.

Before concluding, I will turn to a number of points made during the debate. My right hon. Friend for Rochester and Strood has made a clear case for the position that she and many of her constituents have adopted. I know that she made that case over a number of parliamentary debates before I came into post, and she will continue to make it. We have spoken about the importance of getting planning in Medway into a better place that works for people. As we have just mentioned, the Labour party is now in charge. It owns the situation and it has the choices. It made a series of cases to the electorate a number of months ago, and now it has to work through that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

For the purposes of clarity for anyone watching, will the Minister confirm that when Medway submits its draft local plan, even under the revised NPPF, the standard method is the starting point, and the authority cannot just move away from the standard method number because it feels it is too high? It has to reason why it is moving away from it, and if it does not reason that appropriately and robustly, the plan will fail upon challenge at the examination stage of the process, will it not? So if the authority is going to move away from it, it has to reason how it will meet housing need, even though it is an advisory starting point, and any move away has to be robustly justified. It cannot be because the right hon. Member for Rochester and Strood feels that the targets are too high, as she seems to suggest.

[Lee Rowley]

I am currently in discussion with Medway. We have sent correspondence to indicate that the authority needs to move, so I will not prejudice the outcome of that. The Labour party in Medway, as it does elsewhere in the country, stood on a particular perspective last year. It won legitimately and it now has to deliver. I hope that it can deliver the commitments and promises that it made to the people of Medway and of Rochester and Strood, knowing full well the frameworks within which the planning system operates, because that is what it promised and should endeavour to do.

I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, for whom I have the greatest respect, and we talk on a regular basis about the many elements of planning—

[Matthew Pennycook]

Far too many.

[Lee Rowley]

Far too many, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. In doing so, we are definitely aware of each other’s differing positions, and he is right to highlight those. In that spirit, I want to tease out a number of those differing positions, because they demonstrate how, for a party that is so keen to indicate that it is ready for Government, when we look under the bonnet at the actual detail, it is not there, and the plans are not where they need to be for the general election later this year.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the need to make changes to the planning system. He is right; that is why we made changes to the planning system back in December. That is why we have tried to strike that balance and ensure that there is greater control for local authorities, but recognising that we still have to build houses in the right places across the country to support our increasing population. He is right that we need development, but if we look at examples of where Labour is in power, rather than Labour talking, it consistently underdelivers on housing. The Mayor of London has consistently under- delivered on his own targets for a number of years, primarily because of the 500-plus page London plan that furs up, screws up and messes around with people being about to deliver housing in London. That is a great example of where Labour talks the talk but does not walk the walk in ensuring not only that people are protected, but that we build the houses people need. I hope that when people look closely at the planning policies of the major two parties, they will recognise that Labour, when it actually has the opportunity to do things, consistently fails to do what it talks about.

The hon. Gentleman rightly talked about a difference of opinion between ourselves, and he is correct about the sometimes reductive nature of the discussion. I absolutely agree with him and share that view. Where we disagree and differ is that the nuance needs to go over into individual policies, including the NPPF. The NPPF issued in December seeks to inject that nuance, strike that balance and recognise that we have to build more houses, but we have to build them in the right places. It seeks to do the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet indicated, such as to talk about the local character of an area and to ensure that alternative processes can be considered for defining housing need or explicitly talking about beauty. Next time the boss of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich gets the copy and paste out when taking some of our policies and passing them off as their own, but providing no further detail about how they would change them, I hope he will consider that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I will give way after one more gentle point, if I may. Finally, on the hon. Gentleman’s statement around the approach of the Government on brownfield building, we have been clear over the past few months about the importance of focusing on brownfield. He is right that it is impossible for it to be brownfield only all of the time, forever more with no changes, but what he fails in his otherwise useful remarks to accept is that brownfield often comes with costs. If he is talking about moving even more into wholesale on brownfield than we are doing, encouraging and pushing, the question is, where are his cheques coming from? I am keen to hear from him.

[Matthew Pennycook]

What I would say to the Minister is to first spend the money that is allocated to the Department by the Treasury, which it is failing to do. Leaving aside the point about brownfield, I put to him that he is trying to have it both ways. He says on the one hand that we have to build the houses; on the other, they have to be in the right places and right locations. What is actually happening on the ground in terms of the immediate outcome of the NPPF changes that this Government have driven through is that scores of local planning authorities across the country are revising local plans and revising down housing targets. Just a few weeks ago, South Staffordshire Council reduced its housing numbers by 46% off the back of the revised local plans. The outcome of what the Government have driven through—for all the rhetoric—is policies that will see the numbers of consents and houses built reduced, moving the Government even further away from that target of 300,000 a year that they have not once managed to achieve in 14 years in office.

[Sir Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. I have shown a huge amount of latitude to both Front Benchers about this. I appreciate that it is the local elections tomorrow in many places and that we may well be in a general election year. However, I just remind everybody that this is a debate specifically about Chatham docks basin 3 rather than a ding-dong about who has the best planning policies per se. I think it is appropriate for me to say that. As I say, I think I have given quite enough latitude for discussion of other issues, but if we could get back to the subject of the debate, I would appreciate it.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful for the clear steer from the Chair and I appreciate the point that you are making, Sir Philip, so I will seek to take greater care with my excitement and interest in talking about housing policy more generally.

It is probably important that I sum up and come back to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood has made. This has been a useful debate. Although I am obviously limited in what I can say regarding individual cases and individual planning applications, I think the debate has demonstrated the strength of commitment to trying to get planning right across the country, including in specific areas such as the Medway towns, and the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood to her constituency, both in trying to make planning on progress and more broadly.

The Government have a long-term plan for housing that seeks to build more houses, but we also seek to build houses in the right places. I know that my right hon. Friend, in securing this debate today, in the speech that she gave and in highlighting the importance of getting planning right for her constituents, is working exactly within that spirit of building more homes and building them in the right places.

Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience: Khan Review

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I begin by thanking all hon. Members. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for securing the debate, for opening it in such a temperate and balanced fashion, and for asking some immensely reasonable questions relating to his own community and, more broadly, the importance that we all attach to ensuring that social cohesion is strengthened across the country and that we make progress on this hugely important agenda.

The first thing to say is that the battle against extremism and the rise of extremist ideology across our country is something that everyone here cares passionately about, as all hon. Members who have spoken today have articulated. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North powerfully underlined in his opening speech the need to counter the spread of extremist beliefs among young people in our schools, the importance of confronting issues when young people fall victim, the importance of the Prevent programme to ensure that communities are cohesive and strengthened and, more broadly, the importance that, as a Government and a country, we must attach to making progress on these hugely important issues over time.

That is one of the reasons why we commissioned the Khan review, why we gave Dame Sara Khan the space, the time and the support to look at these matters in the round, and why we welcomed the publication of her report a number of weeks ago. She was charged with examining these issues in greater depth, to investigate the scale, the causes and the impact of extremism in local communities, and to provide insights into how we can build resilience to better support those involved, local authorities and civil society.

As a number of Members have said, the report outlined some of the challenges we face, not because of decisions that the Government have made—I will come back to the point that the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) made in a moment—but, if we are going to have a mature debate about this, because of long-term issues that are impacting western democracies across the world and will impact this democracy whoever is in power. As a consequence, the hon. Lady should be careful about some of the statements that she makes. Those who seriously want to make progress will deal with the issues in front of them rather than calling others who are involved in the conversation names.

The report highlighted particular issues around disinformation, harassment and intimidation; the climate of self-censorship that hon. Members have outlined, not just among people in this place or associated with politics, but across all walks of life; a wider disillusionment with democracy that is starting to seep into parts of our civic society; and decreasing trust in politics, particularly among the young. All of that aggregates to create a vacuum that extremism and extremist ideology can fill.

The Government very much welcome Dame Sara Khan’s work and we thank her for it. We wholeheartedly agree that democracy is a precious asset. That is a view that all of us in this place—right hon. and hon. Members who have the privilege of representing communities up and down the land in Parliament—would share.

The report shines a light on some fundamental gaps in our system, and it clearly sets out Dame Sara’s view of what the Government should do to address those flaws. As has been articulated, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities recently set out measures that will ensure that the Government do not inadvertently provide a platform to those who want to subvert our democracy and deny other people’s fundamental rights. That is just the first of a series of steps the Government will take in the coming weeks and months to tackle extremism and protect our democracy, including the publication of a full response to the Khan review before the summer break. While I am not able to go into the details at this stage, we have committed to publishing a response to the review in the weeks ahead.

I want to turn to some of the individual points that hon. Members have made. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North raised a number of hugely important points about the need to ensure cohesion, and drew upon the experience that he and his colleagues in Stoke-on-Trent have over the long term. I wholeheartedly endorse many of those points.

My hon. Friend has a specific concern with regard to Prevent funding. He will be aware that I am unable to speak absolutely about Prevent funding from the perspective of the Department that I represent, but he indicated that he has written to the Home Office, and I will certainly make sure that, yet again, those points are telegraphed to my equivalents in the Home Office. I recognise that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), and those involved in Stoke-on-Trent politics in general, feel very strongly about that.

I understand that part of the restructuring of the Prevent funding was about regionalising some elements of the funding, and there are still elements of the support that are available to all local authorities. I understand—at least from the notes that I have been given, accepting that I am not the lead for Prevent—that Stoke-on-Trent City Council may not have taken advantage of all the support that is available. I know that my hon. Friends will make sure that the council does that if it has not done so already, recognising the very valid points that they made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South outlined in even more detail the very long-term challenges that were created with the rise of some of these extremist ideologies in his home town, the time and effort that it took to try to beat those back, and all the work that was done to do so. He rightly highlighted the importance of giving space to very mainstream views that are shared in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, Bradford, the north-east and definitely in my part of Derbyshire. We must not suggest that it is illegitimate to be proud of this country and to celebrate its history, its culture, its institutions, its norms and representations of it. Those who over the past 20 years have tried to diminish those things, remove them and pretend they did not happen—those who suggest they are old-fashioned and have no place in our society—are absolutely wrong and do nothing for community cohesion. They do nothing to build the strength and tolerance that our country has thrived on for many decades.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South is absolutely right: like many others, I may not choose to go to the Proms or to indulge in “Rule, Britannia”, but it is vital that we have a shared understanding of the norms, culture, history, traditions and identity that we share in this country, which have brought us to the place we are today. We should be immensely proud of that.

My hon. Friend highlighted some of the read-overs to other areas. Fundamentally, there is an ideology—postmodernism—that has seeped out of our universities over the past 50 years, and which seeks to dismantle the nation state as a concept. There is absolutely no underpinning logic to it; it is essentially a play—a game, an attempt to twist things—and it does not actually help us build communities. It does not seek to build things up; it seeks only to tear down institutions that have worked so well for centuries on end, and to eliminate the concept of the nation state.

Too many people in this place and elsewhere do not understand the incredibly nefarious effect that postmodernism will have on our society if we are not clear about it. That ideology seeps out of universities, moves into our institutions and infects parts of our public sector, and then moves out into civil society as a whole. It explicitly encourages people to have no shared understanding of our history—it effectively wishes to abolish history—to have no shared lexicon and to play with words to such an extent that reality is completely subverted because we say something is one thing on one day and then pretend it is something else on another. There are entirely arbitrary rules underpinning it, which change based upon the fashion, whoever shouts the loudest, and the time of the day and the day of the week. That is an ideology that will fail, and if we allow it to infect our institutions, our civil society and the work we do in this place and elsewhere, our country will be much weaker, poorer and less able to build the kind of cohesive society that we want.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have not had a discussion in this place or elsewhere about what we must do. When people play with the building blocks of civic society, words, institutions, basic concepts and shared endeavour, how can we build the kind of cohesive society that we want? Whether it is expressed in a temperate way, like my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North and for Stoke-on-Trent South did, or in a more emotive way, like the hon. Member for Bradford West did, we have a shared endeavour, but postmodernism absolutely prevents that from happening. We should call it out, stop it and say it has no place in our country and our academic and civil institutions, because it will fail and will lead to a less cohesive society.

[Naz Shah]

I was just thinking about the Minister’s warning that I should be careful. I am just trying to work this out. There is this idea that we should have a shared history, but we are not teaching our history in its entirety to our children. We are not talking about togetherness. The Minister might want to read the lecture by the first Muslim Cabinet member, the former Tory chairwoman, Baroness Warsi, who talked about the idea that Muslims do not matter. Does the Minister agree that, if we want a cohesive society, language is key, and the message has to come right from the top in 10 Downing Street? Muslims must not be otherised. Does he not include Muslims in that conversation, because it certainly feels like that?

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because she articulates yet again the care that is required in language and assertions, which has been sadly absent from her contributions to the debate, both a moment ago and previously. Of course Muslims matter. Of course people of all faiths matter. It is frankly outrageous that there is a suggestion that that is not the case. Of course they matter.

Those of us who are trying to build a cohesive society—an endeavour that I know the hon. Member for Bradford West shares—believe that such statements should not be made. They send a message to people who are listening today that, for some reason, there is some kind of fundamental difference and that those of us who have the privilege to sit in this place do not believe in cohesion and want to separate people out on the basis of the skin or the religion they have, and that is fundamentally untrue.

What I find most offensive, most outrageous and most egregious in this culture of grievance that is perpetuated by comments such as the ones put forward a moment ago is the separation of people within our community into backgrounds or experiences or skin colour.

[Naz Shah]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

No, I will not give way.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister talks about being temperate and using temperate language. Could I please remind him to observe that when he makes his comments?

[Lee Rowley]

With absolute pleasure, Sir Mark. I absolutely intend to do so. As has been outlined, my concern is that it is important that we are very clear and very careful about the language we use, which I have sought to be, and about suggestions as to the motivations of others, which I have sought to be. Equally, it is important that we are robust about calling out cases where that care is not taken. All of us have a responsibility in this place and elsewhere to utilise the best and most careful language, assertions and arguments. Today has been an indication of where that is not occurring in places, and I will come on to that more in a moment.

[Naz Shah]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I will make some more progress before doing that.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised a number of important points and made some very strong points about social media. We are all dealing with our interaction with social media, its importance now and its pervasiveness in daily life, as well as with the opportunities and challenges it brings as a whole. The reality is that social media is entirely embedded in our daily lives, in the way it was not even a few decades ago when I was growing up. The situation is extremely different, most obviously for children, who are having to learn how to deal with it as they grow up, but also across society as a whole. That is something we will have to grapple with for the rest of our lives, and it will not be immediately clear for many years exactly what that means. We are all going to have to learn, and to take things extremely carefully, as we try to understand how we ensure that social media is embedded in our life in a way that accentuates the positives and minimises the negatives.

The hon. Member for Strangford also talked about the challenges of cynicism about democracy, and I accept that point as well. From my personal perspective, one of the challenges in recent years is that there has been a baselining of issues in our country that we actually need to debate much more often. The rights that people talk about quite freely—often too freely in many instances—which I support, and which I know everybody in this place and beyond supports, do not just appear; they are not guaranteed.

[Naz Shah]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I will give way in a moment. Those rights are hard won and hard fought for—people have died for them—and we must continually repeat and confirm that in order to ensure that people recognise that these rights are not automatic. All of us involved in politics and the political process have work to do. The situation we are in, including the relatively benign environment we have grown up in, and our right, when we go home to our respective communities, to have the kind of debates and discussions we want, need to be nurtured. If they are not, they wither on the vine; they ossify, and they do not work. We cannot get away from this principle—this indulgence—that if we do not accept that all of that is built on the concept of the nation state, the United Kingdom and the values our country has, ultimately it will not work in the long run.

[Naz Shah]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is right, and everybody has that right, including me. I represent the great people of Bradford West, and 60% of my constituency is Muslim, as I myself am. I find it really offensive that the Minister is offended that I am stating facts. I am demonstrating that the Government are not walking the walk when delivering on their so-called cohesion policies or their so-called attempts to deliver equality. In fact, I am even more offended at any suggestion that my interventions are about a grievance narrative, when they are actually all about Muslims just wanting equality. We are not talking about special treatment; nobody in my constituency wants special treatment. What they do want—will the Minister give it and agree?—is equality.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions are meant to be short.

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the hon. Lady, who makes some of my case for me. However, turning to her comments, I agree with some of what she says. It is important that we build a shared understanding and a shared set of values in this country. I agree that we should be temperate with language. Where she has called out inappropriate behaviour—I do not agree with all her points—I accept that no party is perfect. I accept that some of my colleagues will have made mistakes. I accept that some words have been looser than they should have been.

However, I hope the hon. Lady will accept that that is not limited to my party or to the Government—there have been multiple examples. However, if we just trade off on the basis of who said what where, or make some kind of case that one political party is worse than the other, when we know that they have all had significant issues with community relations over many years—only one party got into the place it did with regard to antisemitism a number of years ago—we will be much poorer in the debate about this issue.

The hon. Member for Bradford West referenced facts, and I am happy to talk about some of the challenges around the facts she provided a moment ago. She knows that the Inter Faith Network’s funding was withdrawn because of a decision to appoint somebody who had a background in a particular organisation—that was a choice that the organisation made, and it appointed that person. The policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain has been in place since the Labour party was in power. Indeed, it was the former Labour Member for Salford—the Secretary of State in the predecessor to my Department—who started that policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain in 2009, which my party continues to this day. It is perfectly logical to extend a policy that was introduced and endorsed by the Labour party, on the basis of logic put forward by the Labour party, because of the challenges that we now have. The hon. Member for Bradford West shakes her head, but those are the facts on the assertion that she made.

[Liz Twist]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I am afraid I will make progress. I have given way a number of times.

The hon. Member for Bradford West made a number of comments about populism and raised a number of concerns about extremism and its definition. When she next speaks in debates like this, she needs to define the specific issues she has with the definition of extremism, because that was not part of her speech when we strip back all the criticisms about individuals. We can always have a robust debate, but if we want to have a mature one, which the hon. Lady claims she does, it would be better to focus on concerns about the specific definitions the Government are trying to bring forward, and what they do and do not achieve, as opposed to spending much more time talking about individuals.

I will probably leave it there. I have many more things I could say about the hon. Lady’s speech, but maybe it is better to deal with those in another forum at another time. I will just say that I do not agree with much of her speech, and I hope that, in time, she will reflect on many of the points that were made.

Putting aside some of the challenges mentioned in Members’ speeches, and what was contained in at least one of them, I think today has shown that all of us feel extremely passionately about ensuring that we build a society that is cohesive and resilient for the long run, and about seeking to utilise what the Government can do to move forward the things we see in our individual communities, whether that be Stoke-on-Trent, Blaydon, North East Derbyshire, Bradford, Strangford—the hon. Member for Strangford is no longer in his place— or elsewhere. We also want to identify the issues that we need to deal with in the years ahead, which is exactly what the commissioning of the Khan review sought to do.

Despite the robustness of the debate, and despite my fundamental disagreements with some of the points that were made, I think it has been a useful debate and a good debate. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North for giving us the opportunity and space to have the debate, and I am glad that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South have had the opportunity to raise specific they are concerned about within their great city. I hope that such robust debates—next time, the language will hopefully be slightly more cautious and temperate—highlight the interest and need of everybody, wherever we sit on the political spectrum, in terms of getting this matter right and making progress for the long run, which is something we all want to achieve.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

I call Jonathan Gullis to wind up the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to help prevent (a) leaseholders and (b) tenants paying for the remediation of fire defects.

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

No qualifying leaseholder in a building above 11 metres in England will be liable for cladding remediation costs. Where we are able to do so and where they still exist, we are making those who cause these issues pay to resolve them.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

In my constituency, residents are asking for transparency in their service charges. They are fearful that they are being charged for surveys for fire remediation work, which is the responsibility of the developer and not the people who live in the flats and who are not the cause of those problems. What will the Government do for people in Master Gunner Place or Grove Place in my constituency, where people are asking questions but not getting answers on why they are paying these excessive charges? In one case, there was a 107% increase in the service charge. The Government are making all the right noises, but I do not see much result at the sharp end for my constituents.

[Lee Rowley]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely vital there is transparency in how, when and why leaseholders are being charged. That is why we have done one thing and been doing another thing in the past few weeks alone. Last week, on the new building safety approach for high-rise buildings, we were very clear in a joint letter about highlighting the importance of temperate remuneration and cost. Secondly, we need to continue to bring forward the reforms in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, which will see a transformation in transparency on service charges. The Government brought that Bill forward and it will come through as soon as the other place has concluded its observations.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Minister has done good work in protecting leaseholders and renters from remediation costs above 11 metres. As a leaseholder myself, I am a bit baffled as to why people are not protected when fire remediation measures are necessary below 11 metres. I would be grateful if he could explain the Government’s reasoning.

[Lee Rowley]

When the Building Safety Act 2022, which put in place the differentiation, was going through, we were very clear and asked colleagues, on the Floor of the House, for any examples of where there were potential issues below 11 metres. If my right hon. Friend or any other Member has an issue, I would be very keen to hear from them. The reality is that, over the past two years nearly, we have received only 160 potential issues. Of those, we can count on one hand where there has been a problem. We are working with each of those three buildings to make the progress we need to make.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Select Committee welcomed the more than £2 billion provided through the building safety fund to private leaseholders with regard to remediation due to fire safety works. On the other hand, social housing providers received only £200 million, which is about 10% of the amount going to private leaseholders. How can it possibly be fair that in a block of flats a private leaseholder gets their remediation costs paid, but in the same flat next door a social housing tenant has to pay for the total cost out of their rent? That simply is not fair. Ministers have accepted the unfairness in the past. When will they do something about it?

[Lee Rowley]

As my constituency neighbour recognises, there is, rightly, a substantial amount of taxpayer subsidy for remediation. We are trying to ensure that that taxpayer subsidy is then clawed back from those responsible for the problems in the first place. Where there are challenges and issues with registered providers, we are very happy to talk to them. We have done that and we have made changes where necessary.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Following a fire last summer, timber and unplasticized polyvinyl chloride cladding on 586 homes in the borough of Barnet was identified as needing remediation. A number of those homes are in my constituency. Homeowners are facing bills of £23,000. Will the Government help them with those bills?

[Lee Rowley]

This important issue is very much on our radar, and one that we are working through. I had meetings about it only a few days ago, and I continue to do so. Perhaps I could update my right hon. Friend separately outside the Chamber with further information about our proposed approach.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman is aware that our substantial reform package sets out clearly and transparently the changes that are being introduced and what people are expected to pay. It could not be clearer than it is in the legislation, which is one of my reasons for wanting it to proceed as quickly as possible. When there are issues, we are keen to look at them and, where we can, take action, but the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is designed to improve transparency and reduce problems, and I am sure that it will do that once it has completed its passage here and in the other place.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

5. Whether he has made an estimate of the number of planning authorities that do not have an up-to-date local plan.

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

At the end of March 2024, 110 local planning authorities—a third of the total—had adopted a local plan in the past five years, while 291 had plans that were more than five years old. Of those, more than half are making progress towards updating their plans. The Government have made it clear that authorities should continue to update their plans because that is the best way to deliver development that is in the interests of local communities.

[Dr Evans]

My Liberal Democrat-run local council is one of those without an up-to-date local plan. In fact, it has now delayed its plan until 2026, which means that places such as Burbage have housing without full protection. That puts pressure on our GP services, our school places and even our roads. What more can the Government do to persuade Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council to ensure that its plan is established and updated so that my residents have the required protections?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend has raised this matter in the Chamber before, and it is a great example of why it is so important that Bosworth has this Conservative Member of Parliament to highlight the challenges and failures of the Liberal Democrat council. Ultimately, the Government will not hesitate to take action against councils that are not fulfilling their obligations. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done so over the past few months, and we will continue to do so, because we expect councils to do their job and put their plans in place. When Liberal Democrat councils fail to do that, we will call them out.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

York has one of the worst housing crises in the country, yet we have not had a local plan to restrain developers for 68 years. Why has it taken this Tory Government more than 14 years to deliver a local plan for York?

[Lee Rowley]

I am relatively clear that the Labour party has been in charge of York for a substantial proportion of the last 14 years. If the hon. Lady wants an answer to her question about why there is no local plan, she should look to her own party.

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

To help local authorities finalise their local plans, my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues have made significant changes to the planning rules. As a result, Wiltshire has cut its house building by 9,000, North Somerset has reduced its house building plans by 29%, and Three Rivers and others are doing likewise, to ensure that local plans better reflect their communities. Does my hon. Friend expect all local authorities to consider whether the new rules apply in their communities?

[Lee Rowley]

It is vital for local councils to follow what is in the national planning policy framework. We know that where local plans are in place councils build more houses, but, most important, they build more houses in the right places, so that communities can be confident that they are being built where they are needed.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The problem with the Government’s developer-led approach to planning is that it means that we see houses built for demand, but not for local need. In a community such as the Lake District, developers will sell anything they can build, but will it meet the need of local communities? Often it will not. Will the Minister ensure that local authorities and national parks putting together local plans are allowed to designate land specifically and exclusively for genuinely affordable housing so that they can say no to the houses we do not need and yes to the ones we do?

[Lee Rowley]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the planning system has a substantial amount of flexibility—it is one of the frustrations—to ensure that local councils do the right thing. Where they do the right thing, they should be celebrated; where they do not, we should criticise them and hope that they are thrown out. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing against developer-led planning—capitalism, as it is otherwise known—that is a very interesting place for liberalism in this country to go.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

6. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the community ownership fund on local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

14. What steps he is taking to help improve the efficiency of the planning system.

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

We are taking significant steps to speed up the planning system. In large infrastructure projects, that is through the nationally significant infrastructure projects action plan and the “Getting Great Britain building again” policy paper. In relation to the TCPA, we are offering greater clarity through the republication of the national planning policy framework, greater consistency through instructing local councils to ensure that they discharge their responsibilities, and greater capacity through additional support for local councils.

[Andrew Selous]

Can I convey the extreme irritation of two parishes in my constituency that have had five locations for a mobile phone mast turned down? Given that mobile connectivity is now an essential requirement, is it not time that local authorities advised on which technically feasible locations they would be prepared to grant planning permission? Local people could then say where they were happiest for such projects to go, and we would end this stupid cat-and-mouse game that wastes time and means people do not get the connectivity they need.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is right that connectivity is vital in all our communities. It is incumbent upon local councils, including his council in Bedfordshire, to ensure that they are providing the greatest clarity possible for that connectivity and that it is put in place.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

15. What steps his Department is taking to help promote interfaith dialogue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

T5. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to attract long-term landlords back to small coastal towns?

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

My hon. Friend has been a long-standing campaigner for balance within coastal communities. I know that both she and colleagues from the south-west and elsewhere are very keen to see some of the reforms that the Government are introducing on short-term lets and the changes to the planning system.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

T2. In the 2019 Conservative manifesto, the Government made this commitment:“We will continue with our reforms to leasehold including implementing our ban on the sale of new leasehold homes, restricting ground rents to a peppercorn, and providing necessary mechanisms of redress for tenants.”That still has not happened, so either they did not believe it then, they had not thought it through, or the Minister has been nobbled by the Prime Minister. Which one is it?

Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

Lee Rowley Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Written Corrections

[Simon Hoare]

There is a very long list of qualifying documentation for voter ID, and at least 96% of all electors have at least one form of acceptable ID, and many have more. There is also the Voter Authority Certificate, which is free and which does not expire. That meets the needs of the small proportion of the population who do not have an acceptable form of ID.

Building Safety

The following extract is from the statement on Building Safety on 26 March 2024.

[Lee Rowley]

Yet already, almost 60,000 homeowners have peace of mind that remediation is complete, and a further 300,000 dwellings are well on the way to the same.

[Official Report, 26 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 1415.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley):

[Lee Rowley]

Yet already, almost 60,000 homeowners have peace of mind that remediation is complete, and a further 180,000 dwellings are well on the way to the same.