Short-term Holiday Lets: Planning

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Caroline, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for introducing this vital debate. It is a credit to him that so many Members from across our wonderful United Kingdom are here to speak on the issues he has highlighted, and I will turn to all the contributions that colleagues have made before I conclude my remarks.

However, I want first to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend, whose efforts on behalf of his constituents have recently been recognised in the local elections. It is no surprise to me to hear that there has been a win for the Conservatives in his local council area, no doubt thanks to his assiduous work on behalf of his constituents and his communities, and I commend him and his colleagues in Torbay for that incredible effort.

My hon. Friend’s speech has done an extremely good job of reflecting the concerns involved and the issues that matter to his community. He has highlighted the importance of homes for people to live in, which enable them to take jobs in the local economy, and his desire to prevent streets that should contain homes for families from turning into holiday parks. He has called for a balance to be struck, and I hope colleagues will see that my aim is to reflect that in my remarks—indeed, it is what all hon. Members have said—but we agree with him that we must tackle the issue of constrained housing supply.

My hon. Friend is right to challenge me on how quickly such measures could be enacted, and I will definitely turn to that in the body of my speech, but let me first say that I want to be clear that we recognise the value of tourism to our country.

I feel as though I went on a wonderful virtual holiday while colleagues were contributing to the debate, reflecting on many family holidays in different parts of the UK. I think I have been to almost every constituency represented in the Chamber. I have four children, and we had a limited holiday budget when the children were little, so we often had wonderful holidays in this country. I have been to the constituency of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and had lovely walks there. The hon. Gentleman mentioned sharks. We have plenty of sharks here in Westminster, so I do not need to go far to see them. It was certainly very sunny when I went to the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), as it was in Norfolk, Cornwall, Devon and elsewhere.

Tourism is an economic, social and cultural asset that plays a vital role in supporting our institutions and attractions across the country. It is a major contributor to UK jobs and growth, employing 1.7 million people and contributing nearly £74 billion a year pre-pandemic. I am not going to repeat everything that colleagues have said, but we all understand why we need to introduce these reforms. That is why we are in the Chamber for the debate.

Every Member from every party has highlighted the issue of the hollowing out of communities, the impact of that on schools and other services, and the fact that the growth of short-term letting might in itself be having an impact on local businesses that serve the tourism industry, such as restaurants and cafés. That is why we are consulting on changes that will provide local areas, where there is a concentration of such usage, with the necessary tools to help them to strike the right balance between supporting tourism and providing housing for local communities.

Briefly, there are two separate strands to our proposals. The first is the introduction of a new use class for short-term lets and associated PDRs. The C5 short-term let use class will capture those properties that are not someone’s main or sole home, and which are used for the purpose of providing short-term lets. When the use class comes into force, subject to consultation, all dwelling houses will be reclassified. When they meet the definition, they will fall into the C5 use class. There is no planning process attached to that, which means there is no burden on existing short-term lets.

However, short-term lets are not an issue everywhere, which is why we are introducing national permitted development rights that will allow for the change of use from dwelling house to C5 short-term let and vice versa. That will return the position to the status quo ante. Therefore, many people who live in areas where there is no local issue will see no change. Where there is a local issue, the local authority may remove that right by making an article 4 direction. That addresses the point made from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). A planning application will then be required with respect to any future material change of use, allowing for local consideration of where additional short-term lets would or would not be acceptable. In that way, local areas would be able to retain more homes for local people to rent or buy. Many colleagues have been calling for this change, and we expect that they will want to make that article 4 direction and will have the supporting evidence to do so.

Our second proposal relates to where people let out their main or sole home. We know that many people do so and that that helps them to manage the rising costs of living and to benefit from the sharing economy. However, there is no defined limit on how many nights someone can let out their own home, which can lead to uncertainty. We are therefore proposing some changes that will provide homeowners with confidence on how many nights in a calendar year they can let out their home—whether that is 30, 60 or 90. If, in future, homeowners wanted to let out their own main or sole home for more than that specified number of nights, planning permission would be required where there is a material change of use.

As many colleagues have said, and I hope anyone listening will note, the consultation closes on 7 June. It is generating a fair amount of interest, and we welcome this timely engagement with hon. Members on this important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay has challenged the Government, as I fully expected he would do, on when changes can be enacted and brought forward. I reassure him that, subject to the consultation, measures can be brought forward through secondary legislation, but we need to consider fully all the issues raised, not only in this Chamber but elsewhere, in past debates and in the consultation. It is right that we consider all the issues carefully so as to avoid unintended consequences, as many colleagues have said.

Separately, the Government are also introducing a register of short-term lets through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. That will provide a valuable tool for local authorities; it will be a stronger evidence base of short-term let activity in their area, which could help those local authorities better manage the supply of short-term lets. That could also improve consistency and help local authorities apply health and safety regulations across the guest sector. It also gives international visitors visible assurance that we have a high-quality and safe guest accommodation offer.

My colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are consulting separately on how the register would work in practice. We are of course working very closely with that Department and others to ensure that officials are looking across the piece at different Government measures, to make sure they are proportionate and complementary.

Those are not the only changes we are making on short-term lets. We have legislated to require from April 2023 evidence of actual letting activity, in response to very sensible concerns from colleagues. The property must have been let for at least 70 days in the previous year before it can be assessed for business rates and therefore qualify for 100% relief. That ensures that more properties contribute to local services through business rates, council tax or income tax regime changes.

Through the new Renters (Reform) Bill, introduced by the Secretary of State to Parliament just last week, we are removing no-fault evictions and will ensure that landlords will not be able to evict tenants simply to turn the property into a holiday let.

Our ambition remains to deliver the housing that communities need. We delivered 232,000 additional homes—a 10% increase on the previous year. I will not take any lectures from the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich on the Opposition Front Bench. I agreed with many of his comments, but on affordable housing, we delivered over 632 affordable houses. They oversaw the worst record of housebuilding since the second world war in their time in government. In Labour-run Wales, which they often point to, they built no council houses between 2014 and 2017, and only 12 in 2019. Let us look at what they actually do, rather than what they say.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I cannot give way; I am sorry. I need to give colleagues a fair hearing.

I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I note his support for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay and for the Renters (Reform) Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp), who highlighted the importance of these measures being in the control of locally elected councils, which they will be. That is what the changes we will introduce will seek to deliver.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) challenged us, and said we were not doing enough. I completely disagree with that and reject it. As I have set out, we are acting. The changes to section 21 had their First Reading in Parliament just last week.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) challenged me to work closely with other Departments, including the Treasury. We work very closely with the Treasury and also the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, on some of the measures with energy performance certificates. He was right to raise that issue, and concerns have been raised with me.

As ever, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford. It is very important that we all work together across our United Kingdom, even though these issues are devolved, and that we learn lessons and make policy that affects everybody.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who was right to highlight the considerable work going on across Government. I reassure him and any other colleagues with concerns about the Renters (Reform) Bill; we are working closely with him and others to ensure we shape the legislation, as we always do, by listening to different views. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) made a good point about district councils. He has spoken to me about that on many occasions, and we look forward to working with him to understand those issues, and how district councils as well as higher-tier authorities can reap the benefits of the rise in council tax for second homes. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) gave a fantastic speech. She highlighted how acute the problem is in Cornwall, and how much it affects her constituents not only in St Agnes but elsewhere. I thank her in particular for championing what her local council, under Conservative control, is achieving.

The SNP spokesperson, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, highlighted the fact that the planning system is an issue across the United Kingdom. She will know that there is close working at official level to understand the implications of policies and look at evidence. It is right that we do that. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, challenged me, but he said that he supports what we are doing on balance. I thank him for that, and, of course, we will continue to be scrutinised in these debates and elsewhere. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out what the Government are doing.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I do not believe I have time to give way, because I must allow my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay time to wind up. Unless the Opposition spokesperson can do it in 20 seconds—that may work.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I take that as a challenge. The Minister mentioned affordable housing, which I did not mention. Is she concerned that the Government are failing on their derisory target for affordable homes in rural areas?

[Rachel Maclean]

We need much more time to debate that issue, but I reject the hon. Gentleman’s contention. I suggest that he looks to his own party’s record in office in Wales, as I have already said. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay for securing today’s debate.

Leasehold Reform

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to wind up this wide-ranging and impassioned debate on behalf of the Government. We have heard from Members across the House of the challenges inherent in the leasehold system—challenges that we are determined to tackle through further reforms in this Parliament. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have given powerful examples from their constituencies of leaseholders who have been hit with unfair and unreasonable costs. I pay tribute to the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who set out how he believes life can be made better for people in their homes. I thank him for his considerable and extensive work alongside the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and as co-chair of the APPG on leasehold and commonhold reform. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy) for their contributions.

The examples set out by Members across the House only underscore the importance of our work to reform the leasehold sector for good and move towards a simpler, fairer, more equitable commonhold system for flats—a system that, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Building Safety rightly asserted in opening the debate, is common around much of the rest of the world.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I do not have much time, and I have a lot to get through, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer the questions asked by him and his colleagues.

The first point to address is one of timing. In a sense, this debate hinges somewhat on a false premise. It hinges on media speculation—

[Matthew Pennycook]

A false promise!

[Rachel Maclean]

A false premise. It hinges on media speculation, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) set out. I want to be very clear that there has been no U-turn, as some have tried to characterise it. This is about timing. As hon. Members will know, it is a long-standing tradition of this House that Ministers cannot comment on precise timescales and details of forthcoming legislation, but I can reassure the House today that officials in my Department are working flat out to bring forward further leasehold reform.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Rachel Maclean]

Perhaps hon. Members would like to listen to the remarks I am about to make, because I am sure I will answer their questions.

The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), when she opened the debate, said that it will “take some time to phase out this archaic system.” She said—these were the words from the Opposition Front Bencher—that Labour recognises how complex this is. I think it is right to draw the House’s attention to the Labour party’s record when it was in office. I am holding a document from 1995 in which Labour promised to outlaw the feudal leasehold system, but it did nothing while it was in office. Labour has left it to the Conservative Government to fix these issues.

As hon. Members will know, in January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out his intention to bring the “outdated and feudal” leasehold system to an end. To deliver that intention, and in line with our manifesto commitments, we have embarked on a significant programme of reform to give people real control over their homes and their lives. [Interruption.] It is entirely wrong to say, as Members are chuntering from sedentary positions instead of actually listening to what is being said, that no action is being taken. Perhaps they would like to pay attention.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I might be old-fashioned, but I thought that when Ministers came to the Chamber to reply, they had to reply to the debate. The Minister has thanked Members from her own Benches who have spoken, but detailed questions were asked by Members from across the House. All we are getting is a speech written by civil servants, not a response to the debate, and she is quite clearly refusing to take any interventions from my hon. Friends.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Obviously I am not responsible for the Minister’s speech, but I am sure she will be referring to the contributions made by others during her winding-up speech—she is perhaps coming to that now.

I am also checking to make sure that the other Minister, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), will be coming back to the Chamber. I am not sure that he gave apologies for not being here for the wind-ups, but we are just checking.

[Rachel Maclean]

I wanted to thank my colleagues on the Government Benches—it is a courtesy of the House that we do so, and unfortunately, they were not thanked by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). I am very grateful for all Members’ contributions, and if they will allow me, I will come on to answering their questions.

As I was saying, it is our manifesto commitment to bring to an end the outdated and feudal leasehold system. That is why we have embarked on a significant programme of reform. One issue that has been repeatedly raised in today’s debate is escalating ground rents. The Government have tackled that issue head on through our Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022, ensuring that people buying most new leases will not have to pay a penny in ground rents. For existing leaseholders who have already been saddled with unjustified rent hikes, we have asked the CMA to investigate such unfair terms. The CMA has secured commitments benefiting over 20,000 leaseholders, including the removal of terms that allow for the doubling of ground rents, with the charges instead reverting to original rates.

In 2021, commitments were secured from Aviva, Countryside Properties and Taylor Wimpey to return doubling ground rent terms to original rates, and from Persimmon to support leasehold house owners to buy their freehold at the original price quoted. Last year, similar commitments were secured from 15 landlords who bought freeholds from Countryside Properties, and nine companies that bought freeholds from Taylor Wimpey. A further four national developers—Crest Nicholson, Redrow, Miller Homes and Vistry—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Rachel Maclean]

If Members will forgive me, I am attempting to answer the questions they have already asked me, but I will give way briefly to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders).

[Justin Madders]

In her opening comments, the Minister referred to the reason why this motion has been tabled, which is media speculation that there is some backtracking from the Government’s commitments on this issue. The motion very clearly says that the Secretary of State should give an oral statement in one month’s time, and the fact that he is not here today sends a terrible message about his and the Government’s priorities. Surely, in the absence of the Secretary of State, the answer is to support the motion.

[Rachel Maclean]

If the hon. Member will allow me to answer the questions I have been asked, I will come to his points in my remarks.

We are making significant progress to afford real relief to leaseholders, which everyone in the Chamber is calling for, while reforming the system for the better. However, the questions facing leasehold tenure are not simply about money—important though those are—but also include, “Who decides?” For people living in a leasehold home today, we are going to make it easier and cheaper for them to take charge of their building, whether by taking advantage of our reforms to the right to manage or by going all the way and buying out their freeholds following our planned enfranchisement reforms. Both offer to put owners in the driving seat over the decisions that affect them.

In the case of new homes, our ground rent Act has cut off a key source of revenue for freehold landlords. Without strong economic reasons for developers to hold on to, or sell on, the freeholds of other people’s homes, we have created a powerful incentive for builders to put buyers in charge of their new homes from the outset. We know there is more to be done, which is why we are taking two key further steps on new homes.

First, we have made great strides in tackling the needless practice of selling new houses as leasehold. Our actions, including prohibiting Government programmes such as Help to Buy from funding new leasehold houses, have seen the share of new houses sold as leasehold cut from over 15% in 2016 to less than 2% today. But we are clear in our intention to go even further, which means that soon, other than in the most exceptional of circumstances, the selling of new leasehold houses will be banned altogether.

[Mr Betts]

The Minister has just made two commitments. One is banning the sale of new leasehold homes, and the other is bringing in a new process for enfranchisement. Is that a commitment to have both of those in the Bill that will be presented in this Parliament?

[Rachel Maclean]

It is a commitment that I have made from this Dispatch Box, and the hon. Gentleman has heard me say it clearly. He is an extremely experienced Member of Parliament, and he knows that it is not possible for any Minister to commit to the details of what will be in a future Bill or King’s Speech, but I am making commitments about the measures that we intend to enact.

For buyers of new flats—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members would like to hear some further commitments. For buyers of new flats, we will also bring forward much-needed reforms to the commonhold system, so that flat owners and developers will finally have access to a viable alternative to leasehold. It was this Conservative Government that set up the Commonhold Council, and it has met regularly and we are working closely with it.

Several hon. Members spoke about recent reports from the Law Commission, and it is worth saying that we have been working in lockstep with the commission to ensure that our reforms are workable and deliver the outcomes we all want to see. Indeed, I take this opportunity to thank the commission for all its work in this area. It has made more than 300 recommendations for improving the leaseholder system across enfranchisement, including how valuation operates, commonhold, and the right to manage. I have no doubt that hon. Members appreciate the complexity of the reforms in this fiendishly complicated area, and it is absolutely right that we take the necessary time to ensure that they are done properly. We are unapologetic about saying that, for the sake of the owners of 5 million leasehold homes, we have to get this right, and that is what we are committed to do.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being generous. I asked a specific question about Wales, and it is the preference of the Welsh Government that reform is brought forward on an England and Wales basis. Will she commit to doing that? Her predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), promised that change would be coming “soon”, so why are the Government dragging their heels?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will know that we work closely with all the devolved Administrations when we bring forward legislation, and that is the right thing to do.

As hon. Members will know, it is not only leaseholders who are too often subject to unfair or outrageous practices. We should not forget the plight of freehold homeowners who pay towards shared services, such as unadopted roads, but have few rights. The Government remain committed to making estate management companies more accountable to the homeowners for whom they provide services. When parliamentary time allows, we intend to legislate to deliver these commitments, including measures that will allow homeowners the right to challenge the reasonableness of costs they have to pay. We will give them the ability to apply to the first-tier tribunal to appoint a manager to manage the provision of services.

In all aspects of this ambitious programme of reform, the Government are committed to rebalancing what has historically been a largely one-sided relationship between homeowner and landowner. We are affording peace of mind to those who have realised the dream of home ownership—something we on the Government Benches strongly support—giving them much greater control of the place where they and their loved ones sleep at night. Crucially, we are pursuing this agenda in the right way, working hand in hand with the Law Commission, the CMA and our partners across the housing sector.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think the House is still somewhat confused as to what the Government’s position is. The Minister says there has been no U-turn, so can she confirm that it is the Government’s intention to legislate for all the recommendations that the Law Commission made in its three reports in the forthcoming leasehold reform part 2 Bill?

[Rachel Maclean]

I refer the shadow Minister to the remarks I have literally just made on that point. I repeat that we are committed to moving to a fairer, simpler and more equitable system. We are committed to the promises in our manifesto, as the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), set out in his opening remarks. These promises have been repeated by previous Secretaries of State with responsibility for housing. That is our ambition, and we will work tirelessly with Members from all parts of the House to make it a reality.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I put the Question, I am sure that the Whips Office and those on the Treasury Bench will appreciate that concern has been expressed that the Minister who opened the debate is not here for the closing speeches, and I believe attempts are being made to find out what has happened. I assure colleagues that that will be pursued. I just give a reminder for those who wish to participate in the next debate that it is important to get back in good time for the Opposition wind-up as well as for the Minister’s wind-up, and one way to achieve that is to stay for most of the debate, rather than disappearing off for long periods.

Question put.

Houses in Multiple Occupation: Approval

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

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

What a pleasure it is to see you in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) for securing this important debate. It is also a pleasure to see my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) and for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) in their places, representing their communities.

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe will appreciate that, due to my role within the planning system, I am not in a position to comment in detail on the merits of any specific planning applications or appeals. However, I hope he will find my explanation of what the Government are doing to put communities at the heart of decisions, and to tackle the impacts of HMOs on his community, helpful.

My hon. Friend is right to say that HMOs provide relatively low-cost accommodation for rent and can play an important part in the housing market. However, he also rightly highlights some concerns about what the concentration of HMOs can bring, particularly in residential areas, and how they can require control due to those impacts on local areas.

HMOs are required to meet certain standards and are subject to management regulations. Those regulations impose duties on managers of HMOs, including the duty to take safety measures, to supply and maintain gas and electricity and to have them tested, and to maintain common parts, fixtures and fittings. All local authorities are required to license HMOs with five or more people from two or more households when they share facilities such as a kitchen or a bathroom.

Through additional licensing, local authorities also have the power to require HMOs to be licensed when there are three or more unrelated people from two or more households sharing facilities. Local authorities also have strong powers to regulate standards in HMOs, including HMO licensing, penalties of up to £30,000 for breaches of the law, rent repayment orders and, for the worst offenders, banning orders.

My hon. Friend mentioned the role of the planning system. For smaller HMOs, national permitted development rights allow smaller homes to change to an HMO for up to six people without the need for a planning application. However, as he has highlighted in his area, local authorities can remove these rights by making an article 4 direction.

That power enables local authorities to protect important local areas where permitted development rights would have an adverse impact. Local authorities are required by law to publish a copy of the direction and to consult the community. The local planning authority then has a responsibility to decide whether to confirm the direction, taking into account any representations made during the consultation period by my hon. Friend’s constituents. The direction does not prevent development, but means that development cannot be carried out under the permitted development right; instead, it needs an application for planning permission, which means the local authority must consider the proposal in more detail.

[Sara Britcliffe]

I went back and forth with my local planning department on that question, because it did not understand the regulation properly—we are seeing HMOs grow rapidly in some areas, so it is quite new to people. Is there a case for my hon. Friend’s Department to write to authorities so that they know what powers they have when that becomes an issue in their own area?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing her experience. She will appreciate that I am not able to comment on a specific planning determination in her area, but she is right to highlight that local authorities do have those powers, and they are responsible for informing themselves and using the powers responsibly. I am happy to discuss with her outside this Chamber what further action we can take to assist her community.

I also heard my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe comment that, in his particular situation, he felt the article 4 direction was not having the effect it should. I have heard his concerns and I am happy to meet him, but I cannot stray into the territory of commenting on a particular planning determination, which is rightly not a matter for us to debate in this Chamber.

I will just say a couple of words about the planning application process. My hon. Friend did an excellent job of setting out the impact that HMOs have on a community that has long-established roots. I agree with him, of course, that students offer a huge amount of benefit to a local area, bringing income and bringing vibrancy, but that changes the character of an area, and in policy terms it is a question of balance and ensuring that everybody who lives in a community feels heard and represented.

Communities play a key role in the planning system. Local people need to believe that being involved is worthwhile to ensure that development is brought forward in a way that works best for them. Planning law requires local planning authorities to undertake a formal period of consultation for a period of no less than 21 days prior to deciding a planning application.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

May I very briefly bring to the Minister’s attention a case involving a semi-rural area with just six to eight houses? All of a sudden, one those houses became what was traditionally known as a halfway house—meaning a house for ex-offenders. There are more than six people there, and no licence was applied for. Surely that should not happen. The police have been called on many occasions because it appears that violent offenders are being housed there, causing great worry to the families in the surrounding six or eight houses. Surely a licence must be in place before somewhere becomes a halfway house.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing his residents’ concerns to the Floor of the House. Of course, he will appreciate that I am not able to comment on the specific circumstances surrounding that particular case, but I am more than happy to meet him outside the Chamber and look into the details of that.

I want to make the planning process clear to my hon. Friends. It is absolutely right that local residents are able to raise concerns in the process, and that those are taken into account, but every planning application is judged on its individual merits, and the weight given to those considerations is a matter for the local planning authority as the decision taker.

That brings me to the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe raised about conditions and their enforcement. When planning permission is granted, the local authority has powers to impose conditions. It could, for example, require an applicant to complete a construction management plan. That would require the applicant to submit details on how they will minimise the impact of construction on local residents. He raised a very concerning experience of a burst water main. Clearly, the Government expect builders to act responsibly. There may well be some things on which we can provide him with more information, so I will ask my departmental officials to write to him on that particular concern.

If a development being carried out is not in accordance with planning conditions, the Government are clear that local planning authorities have a range of planning enforcement powers that they can and should use to tackle breaches of planning control. That enforcement is at their sole discretion; it is for them to decide what, if any, enforcement action to take depending on the particular circumstances of each case.

I will touch briefly on the role of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. We are bringing forward ambitious and wide-ranging reforms through that Bill, which is currently before Parliament. There are many proposals that place communities front and centre of the planning system. We will increase and enhance the opportunities for involvement to ensure that development is brought forward in a way that works best for local people.

In conclusion, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe for a useful and constructive debate, and other hon. Friends for representing their constituents in their contributions. I hope that I have clearly set out the measures we have in place to enable local authorities to control HMOs in their areas, and the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that communities continue to have their say in development that affects them.

Question put and agreed to.

Voter ID

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if he will make a statement on arrangements in place to record the number of voters who attend at a polling station and are denied a vote because they are not in possession of valid ID.

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

It is vital that we keep our democracy secure. This Government stood on a manifesto commitment not only to protect the integrity of our elections but to enhance it. On that basis, this Government won a majority. We have introduced legislation to implement that commitment and we are now in the process of delivering on our promise. Voter identification is central to protecting our electoral system from the potential for voting fraud. Its implementation at the local elections next week brings the rest of the UK in line with Northern Ireland, where people have had to bring photographic ID to vote in elections since 2003. [Interruption.] I remind the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who is chuntering from a sedentary position, that that legislation was introduced by the then Labour Government under direct rule.

The data collection processes for polling stations are set out clearly in the Elections Act 2022 and the Voter Identification Regulations 2022. Polling station staff will record details of any electors turned away—should there be any—for the purposes of complaints or legal challenges and, in the short term, to provide data to evaluate the policy, which will be conducted by the Government and the Electoral Commission in line with the legislation that was voted on, debated and passed by this House.

The Electoral Commission has published suggested templates of the necessary forms and has updated its guidance in the polling station handbook to reflect the new processes. As required by legislation, the Government will publish a number of reports on the impact of the voter identification policy. Our intention is that the first of those reports will be published no later than November 2023. The data collected will be a significant part of that evaluation.

There are few tasks more important in public life, as I am sure every member of a political party represented in this House and the general public would agree, than maintaining the British public’s trust in the sanctity of the ballot box in our democratic processes. We on the Government Benches take that duty very seriously. I look forward to our first experience of the policy in polling stations in Great Britain on 4 May.

[Mr Betts]

I was not my intention to get into an argument about the appropriateness of the policy. I was trying to recognise that it will be important to know the impact of the voter ID regulations once the elections have taken place. When people go to polling stations and are turned away because do not have the requisite ID, will those numbers be recorded? We know that if someone speaks to a polling clerk and is turned away, the total number of those people—not their names—will be recorded. But because of concerns about the collection of people around polling stations, some authorities will have meeters and greeters outside who will check in advance, perhaps when people are in a queue, whether they have the required ID. We do not know whether people who are turned away at that point will have their numbers recorded—that is the confusion.

At a recent Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee hearing, Peter Stanyon, the chief executive of Association of Electoral Administrators, made this important point:

“The returning officers are required where they have a meeter-greeter to report those they have advised at the door and turned away, and those at the desk as well. They will be reported as two separate things…The base standard is it is at the desk, because that is where the ballot papers will be and that is where the question is asked. Where there is a meeter-greeter, the commission is asking for that statistic and the Government are asking for that statistic as well.”

So two sets of statistics will be collected. That seems fairly clear.

The problem is that this week the Electoral Commission said something very different. It said that when meeter-greeters turn someone away who does not have the voter ID that they should have, those numbers will not be counted. I have a simple question for the Minister: is it the Government’s intention that that information will be collected, so the total number of people who attend a polling station but are denied a vote because they do not have the requisite ID will be counted?

Was the statement made by Peter Stanyon to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee correct? If it was correct, why did the Electoral Commission issue different advice this week? Was that information incorrect? Or, if it was correct, was the information provided by the Electoral Commission this week given with the consent and approval of the Government? If it was, and meeter-greeters are going to turn people away and the numbers are not going to be collected, how can it be said that it is the Government’s intention to collect information that includes the number of people who are turned away? Surely both elements have to be added together in order to get the total numbers correct and to properly assess the impact of the measure.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his forensic scrutiny, as we would expect from the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee. I will make a couple of basic points, but it may be appropriate for me to follow up in writing, because he is referring to some conversations—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) would stop chuntering so I can answer the question appropriately, because the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has requested a considerable amount of detail, which I am attempting to give.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will make that decision; that is why I went shush. Carry on, Minister.

[Rachel Maclean]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I will make a couple of points. First, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the Electoral Commission has been directed by the Government. That is not the case. As he will know, the Electoral Commission is a completely independent body. I was just present in the Chamber to listen to one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), answering questions on behalf of the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is subject to scrutiny and plays a vital role in these processes.

For the avoidance of doubt, I remind the House that we are very concerned to get the process of data collection correct. As set out in the voter identification regulations, data collection will take place in polling stations via two forms: the ballot paper refusal list and the voter identification evaluation form. The first records data in case of a later complaint or legal challenge. The latter records data for the purpose of evaluation of the policy. As has been discussed many times in the House, Cabinet Office research in 2021 showed that 98% of electors already have one of the accepted forms of photographic identification. An expired identification is also to be accepted if the photo remains a good likeness.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Following the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the key points are, first, whether people know they need voter ID, and I hope these questions and answers will help to encourage that; secondly, they need to take that ID; and thirdly, that if they go to a polling station without it, they can go home and get it. Will the Electoral Commission be able to tell how many people who were initially unable to vote were able to come back and vote?

Finally, did the Electoral Commission recommend voter ID in England in 2015? And am I right in thinking that it is not only in Northern Ireland that voters require ID, but in the Republic of Ireland as well?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the Father of the House for his comments. He is right in saying that voter ID is required not only in Northern Ireland—introduced by a Labour Government—but in the Republic of Ireland, along with many other European countries and Canada. This country is currently an outlier, and many experts have made that point.

My hon. Friend mentioned the arrangements at polling stations. We all play an important part in raising awareness. All of us who have local elections coming up have certainly been playing our part in reminding voters that ID is essential. There is a free form for which people can apply, as well as the 20 other forms of ID that are acceptable at polling stations. Local authorities have been given additional funds to raise awareness, working with all communities to ensure that voter engagement is as high as it possibly can be.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Colleagues will have been dismayed to learn that fewer than 90,000 of the up to 2 million people without appropriate ID have applied for a voter authority certificate. Voter ID has always been a solution in search of a problem. Millions of pounds have been squandered on this process, and we now find that hundreds of thousands of people have had their votes taken off them. The Minister talks of experts, but all the experts—the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Local Government Association—begged the Government not to introduce voter ID for the May elections because there was not enough time. Ministers did not listen, and this is the consequence. The sole accountability is theirs. We wait to be shown the scale of this travesty; that is rightly a role for the independent review, but the review will work only if it has the correct data.

Last month, during oral questions, I raised the point that many returning officers intended to use greeters outside polling stations to turn away those without ID, and that those turned away would not count as having been denied votes. That is deeply wrong, and not acceptable. The Minister did not address this point in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), so let me press her again. Whose advice is right? Will people who are turned away by someone outside a polling station who asked whether they had appropriate ID count as people who have been denied a vote, or will they not?

[Rachel Maclean]

I find it interesting that the hon. Gentleman has sought to rehash arguments that we have already had numerous times in this place, and I find it surprising that his party is not committed to protecting the sanctity of the ballot box. The reason we have had to introduce this legislation is the absolute fiasco that we have seen unfolding in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham over the years. We need to protect the sanctity of the ballot box, and that is what we are doing. We are introducing a number of measures to collect the data that will enable us to conduct the detailed analysis that is required by the legislation and by the electorate, and that is the right way of doing things.

May I ask why, if the Labour party is so opposed to voter ID, it requires ID for all its candidate selection meetings? Why have Labour Members stated time and again that they know full well that most people in this country have a valid form of ID? What is good enough for candidate selection in the Labour party should be good enough for our local elections.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I must tell the Minister that I am very uncomfortable with this policy. She is right to say that Tower Hamlets and other parts of the country are having problems, but they are principally about postal votes rather than personation. We have had one conviction in a decade in this context. The Electoral Commission said that the pilot was not big enough for conclusions to be drawn, although there was a reduction of up to 6% in turnout. In Northern Ireland, which the Minister cited, there was, according to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, a 2.3% reduction. I am afraid the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) had a valid point. Will the Minister please write to everyone, not just the hon. Gentleman, giving proper answers to his questions?

[Rachel Maclean]

Pilots have been conducted on a number of occasions in, I think, Woking and Pendle. A thorough study was carried out, and we found no evidence of turnout being lowered. We also observed very high engagement with the new processes. The forms of ID that were available were very clearly communicated to people. What is more, this policy intervention has served the purpose of raising public confidence in the sanctity of the electoral process, and I think we should all welcome that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am sure the Minister did not intend to give inaccurate information when she said that all Conservative candidates and campaigns have been giving out correct information. A leaflet went out in Norfolk saying that people do not need photographic ID, so they clearly failed to pass on the correct information there.

We in the SNP have consistently raised our opposition to voter ID, because it disproportionately disenfranchises vulnerable and under-represented groups such as disabled people, young people, trans and non-binary people, and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. Given that local councils, this place and politicians at all levels are disproportionately white, non-disabled, older and non-trans, what assessment have the Government made of the impact that requiring voter ID will have on the representativeness of democracy in these isles?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I would reflect that she and her party are extremely keen to rejoin the European Union and that very similar electoral systems operate in many EU countries, and in many other advanced western democracies. That is what we are seeking to introduce in this country.

Of course, the hon. Lady is right to highlight the need to make sure that various groups of society are not disenfranchised. Research has demonstrated that 99% of black and ethnic minority communities already possess a form of voter ID that is perfectly appropriate for voting. It is also the case that some ethnic communities are more disadvantaged by abuses at the ballot box, which is why we will always fight for all people in our United Kingdom to have trust and confidence in the sanctity of our electoral processes.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Mask wearers are to be required to remove their mask. Will the Government issue reassuring advice, drawing attention to the WhatsApp messages of the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) revealing that masks do not work, have no evidential base and were introduced only as a means of keeping up with the ultras in Scotland?

[Rachel Maclean]

I am satisfied that the Government are introducing all relevant public health advice, including to people who are clinically vulnerable. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) set out in detail some of the measures that will be taken in local authority polling stations.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

For this set of elections, bearing in mind they are taking place only in England, the Electoral Commission tells me that 250,000 to 350,000 people should have applied for a voter ID certificate. At the deadline, just 85,000 had been issued, despite the estimated £4 million advertising spend. Given that less than a third of voters requiring voter ID applied for this certificate, does the Minister accept that voter suppression has already occurred?

[Rachel Maclean]

No, I strongly reject that. I can see where this debate is going. Opposition Members are making shrill, hyperbolic and misguided claims that this is somehow voter suppression. I find that quite extraordinary, given that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency Labour party requires and expects its members to turn up with photographic ID when selecting candidates.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is typical flip-flopping from Labour Members, who are now campaigning to repeal laws that they introduced in Northern Ireland in 2003?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. When Labour Ministers introduced voter ID in Northern Ireland, they set out in great detail why the legislation was necessary. Why is it good enough for one valued part of our United Kingdom but not good enough for the electors of Great Britain?

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

As the Local Government Association indicated earlier this month, and as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) has reiterated, there are significant practical problems for polling clerks. Meanwhile, the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators has said that discussions are taking place with the police for extra resources on polling day. With a week to go, can the Minister confirm whether enough polling clerks have been recruited and whether additional police resources have been secured to support the additional burden next Thursday? What strain will this place on police services?

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight all the practical work that is going on, and I want to thank local authorities very much for the way they have delivered those additional measures that are going to be needed, backed by £4.75 million of central Government funding through the new burdens process. Of course, the Government will take very seriously all the lessons learned about this exercise, but I return once more to the point: when this process was introduced in Northern Ireland, under a Labour Government, none of the issues that are being raised regularly by Opposition Members were found to have turned out in practice to be the case.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

Some elderly constituents have contacted me to say that they know they need voter ID next week and they look forward to their trip to the polling station. Will my hon. Friend confirm what types of voter ID will be acceptable on the day?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question and encourage all of her constituents, from whatever age group, to go to the polling station. There is a long list of valid forms of photo ID, and we know that 98% of the population hold one of them. I have the list here and it is available on gov.uk. I will not detain the House by reading them all out, but they include: driving licence; passport; blue badge; PASS—national Proof of Age Standards Scheme—card; the Young Scot card; the Post Office card; and of course the free voter authority certificate.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Let us get back to what is really going on here this morning. One week before these important elections, this Minister has turned up in the House of Commons to answer an urgent question to which she does not know the answer and has offered to write to Members of Parliament. That is utterly unacceptable. Will she return to the House later today, having asked Mr Speaker, to make a statement to this House and turn up with the information that she should have had when she got here, so that she can answer the question to which the House wants the answer?

[Rachel Maclean]

I firmly rebut that. I have made multiple comments answering the questions that Members have put to me. I also firmly rebut the accusations from Opposition Members suggesting that something is going on here other than protecting our electoral system in this great democracy, in which we are all proud to serve. [Interruption.]

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Let us try to calm things down. In my hand, I have a senior railcard, which allows me to enter a polling station and vote. A young person’s railcard, which is almost identical and carries a photograph, will not give them permission to vote. The Minister will be aware of allegations of vote rigging by this Government against younger people. What does she have against younger people? When a note is taken of who is turned away because they do not have identification, will the person’s demographic characteristics be identified so that we can see whether or not the vote rigging against young people and other groups that has been alleged has taken place?

[Rachel Maclean]

There is no vote rigging going on here. Under the process that has been set out through regulations, when people who are turned away later return to the polling station with accepted ID, which includes many forms of ID that young people are accustomed to carrying because they need to prove their ID on many occasions, such as when going into pubs and clubs and having an alcoholic drink, legally that can be recorded only by a poll clerk or a presiding officer at the issuing desk. If they go into the polling station, the data would be recorded at that point.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

Let me ask a question that was asked earlier. I have grave issues with voter ID, but the Government are going to go ahead in any case, so let me ask a very straightforward question. The people who will be monitoring will perhaps have to turn somebody away, because they have turned up with proof of ID that has an old photograph—the person will think it is representative of them, but it is no longer representative because it is out of date, although apparently still a valid proof of ID. What training will people have had to be able to say to somebody, “You do not have the right to vote here today”?

[Rachel Maclean]

There has been extensive work and engagement with local authorities by the Electoral Commission, the Government and others to make sure that all possible scenarios and processes are followed properly to protect the sanctity of our electoral system.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

At a time when the majority of people are already not exercising their democratic right to vote in local council elections, this Conservative Government have introduced new voter ID regulations that will remove the right to vote unobstructed for millions of Brits. The Minister is unable to answer the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), but perhaps she can answer this simple question: exactly how many cases of voter impersonation produced enough evidence to lead to a police caution?

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Gentleman makes a series of points that I do not accept. I do not recognise or accept in any shape or form the statements he has made on the Floor of this House that we are seeking to remove the right to vote. I think those were the words he mentioned. I remind him that 99% of young people already have a valid form of voter identification, and I have answered the question put to me on multiple occasions—it is just that Opposition Members do not like the answer.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Minister has said that people who are turned away at the desk by a qualified voting agent will have that fact recorded. However, if we are looking to understand what is going on as a result of the requirement for ID when voting, surely those people who are turned away by a meeter or greeter at the door must also be recorded, and it is important that the people doing that meeting and greeting are properly trained to do it? Will the Minister go away and give some thought to that point, which she has completely ignored? It will obfuscate any attempt to understand what is going on if people are being turned away at the door and not recorded.

[Rachel Maclean]

I have not obfuscated or ignored the point. I have been clear that the data on people who are turned away and who later return to the polling station with accepted ID will be recorded by a polling clerk or a presiding officer at the issuing desk. As has been discussed many times in this House, with the arguments rehearsed by many hon. Members, the greeters outside the polling station have an important role to play. However, I am sure that hon. Members can appreciate that, if someone decides not to exercise the right to vote, in a free and democratic society it is not for an agent of a local authority to ask intrusively why that person decides not to vote.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the Minister can help me with this. Will lower turnout in the local elections next month be regarded by Ministers as a success or a failure in terms of what they are trying to achieve?

[Rachel Maclean]

What the Government are trying to achieve, and what this Conservative Government were elected to do, is to improve public confidence in the process of the exercise of our democracy. I note for the right hon. Lady that, when similar systems have been introduced in other major advanced western democracies, public confidence in the process of voting has gone up. We are an outlier at the moment and we need to bring ourselves into line with accepted practice.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

I am a bit puzzled, so let me ask the Minister this: does she actually understand the difference between universal suffrage elections, such as the local elections coming up, and internal party elections?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Of course I do.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

The Minister simply has not answered the question whether, if people turn up outside and are turned away outside, they will be counted in the data. She has just read out a note that said they will be counted if they later return. If they do not return, will they be counted or not? Will she answer the question?

[Rachel Maclean]

I refer the hon. Lady to my earlier remarks, where I answered the question clearly.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I think the Minister was in her place when my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) answered my question at Electoral Commission questions. There is only a week left until the local elections, and the Minister knows there are a number of immuno- compromised people for whom catching covid could still be deadly. They will be required to remove their face masks at the polling station. Can she look urgently at getting that changed in time for Thursday, so that those people who can prove they are immunocompromised do not face the requirement to remove their face mask in order to get a ballot paper?

[Rachel Maclean]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks I made when questioned on this precise point earlier. I also refer him to the remarks made in great detail by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who was answering for the Electoral Commission, about all the work that has gone on to make sure we protect public health in this situation.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

According to reports this week, it is estimated that only 4% of the 2 million people who do not have valid ID have applied for a voter authority certificate. I am extremely concerned that many of my constituents will not be able to vote on 4 May. What assessment have the Government made of the number of people in Wirral West who will not be able to vote on 4 May because they do not have photo ID?

[Rachel Maclean]

I say again that it is a shame that Opposition Members are attempting to engage in this hysterical scaremongering. The hon. Lady’s voters in Wirral West, just like voters across Great Britain, have been given all the information they need through the extensive work that this Government have done alongside the Electoral Commission. We know that 98% of her voters in Wirral West will already possess a valid form of voter ID.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It seems that there is considerable anger out there—according to my postbag, anyway—that the desired effect of this Government’s actions seems to be discouraging people from voting. I have two concerns. The first is about what will happen in polling stations when volunteers and local authority officers have to confront disgruntled voters. What safety measures will the Minister put in place? Secondly, in terms of the meet and greet, if data is important, surely the simple solution is to place an additional officer outside the polling station to collect that data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I do not in any way recognise the statement that the hon. Gentleman made about considerable anger. In fact, nationwide polling indicates precisely the opposite. The public are actually satisfied, and they are pleased that we are taking the necessary steps to increase confidence in the voting system. It is something that this Government were elected to do, and we are getting on and doing it.

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

Some 96% of people without ID still do not have any ID at all to show when they vote, so the Government’s implementation of their own policy has been completely abysmal. Let us try to be pragmatic. Since it is an electronic process, why can there not be emergency measures at polling stations to enable someone who turns up to vote without ID to create their ID? They would then have the right to vote, and their democracy would not be denied.

[Rachel Maclean]

The Government simply do not recognise the figures that Members are using or the false voter suppression narrative that they are putting forward. We know that 98% of the electorate already have voter ID. We know that many of the people who have not registered for a free voter authority certificate live in areas that do not have elections, so they do not need to register for a certificate. We also know that turnout is sometimes lower than we would like it to be; that is very disappointing, and we all want turnout to go up. We all know from knocking on doors, as I am sure the hon. Lady does assiduously in her constituency, that sometimes people just do not want to vote. We live in a free country. We cannot compel people to vote. We do not have a compulsory voting system.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

What an absolute and utter mess! I have rarely seen a performance so inept and ill-informed as the Minister’s this morning. The Government cannot even tell us how those they are disenfranchising will be recorded. All I can say is, thank goodness that in Scotland we will have nothing to do with this voter suppression mechanism for elections under our responsibility. Does the example of the Norfolk Tory leaflet not show us that what they are doing is introducing voter fraud where none existed?

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Gentleman’s comments do him no credit. I will directly address the remarks about the Norfolk leaflet. The people responsible apologised straightaway. It went through, I am told, 200 doors. It was a mistake. The leaflet has been withdrawn. If he has been listening to my remarks throughout this session, he will know of the extensive work that has gone on to set out all the ways people can vote, the Government’s position on this, and the way that we have worked with local authorities and the Electoral Commission.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Apologies, Mr Speaker, for missing the start of the urgent question. May I ask the Minister when the data will be published, and will she ensure that it is published within 28 days of 4 May?

[Rachel Maclean]

Yes. I set that out in the earlier part of my answer to the urgent question, which I am afraid the hon. Lady missed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answers. In Northern Ireland, most people know that voter ID is a requirement to vote, unlike in the UK currently. I always try to be helpful and constructive in my comments. We in Northern Ireland accept—this is in reference to what the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) said—out-of-date ID that still has a likeness to the individual. May I ask the Minister to consider that when allowing individuals to vote in England, as I believe that there is a legal right to use the franchise? Any form of photo ID, whether it is out of date or not, should and must be sufficient.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. He is probably the only Member of this House who has real experience of the system working.

[Kevin Brennan]

No, he is not. There are other MPs from Northern Ireland.

[Rachel Maclean]

I stand corrected by the hon. Gentleman who is speaking from a sedentary position. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is the only such Member I can see in front of me, present in the Chamber and participating, bringing his experience of the system in Northern Ireland. He is right that, as I set out earlier, a photographic ID that is a little out of date but in which the likeness can still be established is a relevant form of ID that will be accepted.

[Mr Betts]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just after I started asking my urgent question, I received a letter from the chair of the Electoral Commission John Pullinger, in which he says that the only data recorded will be those recorded by the polling clerks when people get to the desks to try to cast their vote and do not have voter ID. He accepts that the numbers of people met by meeters and greeters and turned away without voter ID cannot be recorded, which will compromise the data that is collected by the polling clerk, so the Electoral Commission will publish two sets of data: one from polling stations without meeters and greeters and one from polling stations with them. How can that be a sensible and co-ordinated information collection to show the actual impact of the measure?

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you for the point of order. Minister, are you happy to answer that?

[Rachel Maclean]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to be able to answer that. This has been referred to many times during the debate. Of course, I have not seen the particular letter to which the hon. Member refers. To answer the substantive points that he has put to me, the greeters will not collect the data, as I have said already from the Dispatch Box. The chair of the Electoral Commission, the former national statistician, has said that that would risk providing inaccurate data in an inconsistent way. Those are important factors that we need to take into account in our deliberations. All poll clerks have been trained to record data accurately, and we have provided new burdens funding. As is right after introducing any new policy, there will of course be a full evaluation of it, of which formal data collection in the polling station will be only one part.

[Mr Speaker]

As Chair of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, will the Minister write to me as well to clarify whether those data are recorded? Then I have a very clear answer when Members come to me in that role.

Abingdon Lodge Hill Junction and Local Infrastructure

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to listen to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) as she ably sets out her case on Lodge Hill junction. She has been an assiduous representative, and I am happy to work with her. I will set out the position, as she said, and provide a little more context.

I am grateful for the chance to talk about what the Government are doing to back these ambitions through significant funding for local leaders of all parties in Oxfordshire. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon sketched out a little of the landscape and the political colours involved, and it is fair to say that everybody needs to work together in these times to deliver these significant infrastructure projects, which have such a huge impact on her constituents. The Government stand firmly behind local leaders, in Oxfordshire and elsewhere, through upcoming measures such as legislative changes supporting sustainable housing growth.

I think the hon. Lady started from 30 years ago, but I will not go quite that far back—I will go back just to 2017. Oxfordshire has long been pivotal to the UK economy, with nationally significant assets and world-leading strengths in science and innovation. That was underlined by the critical role played by its university and research facilities in the development of the covid-19 vaccine. Its success is central to cementing our whole country’s reputation as a science superpower, which is one of the Prime Minister’s key priorities, and our wider ambitions to level up innovation and opportunity throughout the country.

We agree with the hon. Member that a lack of affordable housing could make it harder for the area to attract and retain talent when competing in a global market. That is why the Government have gone to such lengths to drive housing and growth in Oxfordshire. In March 2017, the Government agreed a £215 million housing and growth deal with Oxfordshire councils to deliver 100,000 homes, including more affordable housing, as well as infrastructure improvements to support sustainable development across the county. That underlines our commitment to championing local leaders, who are rightly elected to represent their local communities and dedicated to tackling the challenges facing their areas. It is right to put those local communities in the driving seat when it comes to making decisions about how best to allocate taxpayer resources that have been allocated to them from central Government.

That deal is just the start. Oxfordshire is also benefiting from £107 million of housing infrastructure funding for the A40 smart corridor scheme and £35 million of local growth funding for the Oxford science transit project, which will unlock substantial infrastructure investment along the key corridor west of Oxford. I do not think anybody can claim that this Government are not backing Oxford’s ambitions for its local economy.

I will turn specifically to the Lodge Hill junction, which the hon. Lady discussed in a lot of detail. She is absolutely right to highlight the concerns of local residents, who rightly want to see infrastructure delivered. In the main, they do support housing, because they understand the need for it, but they make the case every time that the infrastructure must be there. That is also the position of the Government. The project that the hon. Lady talked about is to deliver an upgraded interchange on the A34 trunk road north of Abingdon-on-Thames—a new, grade-separated dumb-bell junction. I am not a transport expert, but I am sure people listening to the debate will know exactly what I mean when I say that. It is a junction over the A34 on the A4183 Oxford Road, with new south-facing slip roads on and off the A34. That is required, along with pedestrian, cycle and traffic-calming works and a lay-by on the A34.

The existing Lodge Hill junction provides northbound on-slip and southbound off-slip only, which means that all residents of north Abingdon who commute to and from major employment centres including Didcot, Milton Park science and technology park, and Harwell science and innovation campus, or to the M4 and beyond, travel through Abingdon’s historic town centre to the Marcham interchange to the south to access the A34, causing congestion and delay. I understand the frustration of the hon. Lady’s residents, which she has described.

This long-standing strategic highway project has been included in successive local transport plans and is supported by Vale of White Horse District Council. The responsibility for delivering the scheme lies with Oxfordshire County Council, subject to technical approval from National Highways. Oxfordshire County Council—as you might be aware, Ms McVey, and as I understand it—is run by a coalition involving a working arrangement between the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Green party.

In autumn 2022, my Department asked Homes England to explore whether the funding shortfall that had emerged could be funded from the brownfield, infrastructure and land fund. The latest is that the business case for that brownfield, infrastructure and land fund programme is expected to be submitted shortly to the Treasury for final approval.

It is right to pause for a second to reflect on what we are talking about. May I gently correct the hon. Lady? This is not a question of the Government blocking funding. Funding is required beyond the initial business case. That needs to be met from somewhere, and we all understand, as we have seen it across the country, that sometimes infrastructure projects are delayed for covid or other reasons, and costs go up. When that happens, naturally, and as we would expect, a responsible Government and a responsible Department must undertake discussions around the business case. After all, we are talking about taxpayers’ money.

If we were to find a shortfall for a project in the hon. Lady’s area, the money would have to be taken from a project somewhere else. No doubt the residents of that area would ask why £13 million, or whatever the figure, had been taken from their project, which they, too, desperately needed, and been allocated to a project in the hon. Lady’s area. It is right that the Treasury and the Government take a responsible view.

Those discussions are taking place and, as I understand it, there are cost estimates in the project plan. I am happy to have further meetings with the hon. Lady on that point because I understand that there is an awful lot of detail involved and it is not possible for us to get into it here. We do not have the time to consider the detail of a project of such long standing.

The hon. Lady referred to Homes England, which is continuing to engage with Oxfordshire County Council and Vale of White Horse District Council to achieve some of the clarifications required to develop the business case. That involves, as I think she said, agreeing an approach to grant recovery via developer contributions and clarifying other elements of the scheme.

The hon. Lady is right to point to the link with the housing project, because the funding for the junction unlocks further funding for the houses that are required to be built. There are wider transport and economic benefits, and we do not want much-needed future housing to be blocked for any reason, least of all with respect to important transport infrastructure.

I will draw my remarks to a close unless the hon. Lady wants further clarification in the time remaining.

[Layla Moran]

indicated dissent.

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady is indicating that she does not seek further clarification. Therefore, I thank her once again.

I am happy to have a meeting in the Department with the relevant people so we can see what else we can do. I would encourage the hon. Lady to work with her local partners—lots of local authorities are involved in this process—because they bear a responsibility to do their part and to get the much-needed business cases in place so we can all work collaboratively.

Question put and agreed to.

Freehold Management: Service Charges

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2023 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great pleasure and privilege to respond to my hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on this vital matter.

I pay huge tribute to hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for his persistence on this particular issue and for his convening power in gathering 30 of our colleagues, which is no mean feat, regardless of the issue. He has made an incredibly compelling speech, every word of which the Government—and certainly the Department for Levelling Up—agree with, as I will set out in the time that remains. I also pay tribute to the individuals and groups he has worked with and about whom he has taken time to speak to me. He has explained to me the impact on the lives of his constituents, mentioned Tom Middleton of the residents’ association, and set out the excellent work that Councillor Jim Weir and many other councillors in the area have done. When my hon. Friend told me the story of the seven lampposts, I found it absolutely appalling and shocking that that kind of abusive practice can go on in this day and age. It has to stop, and we are absolutely committed to putting into practice the actions that will bring a stop to it.

I do not need to deliver most of my speech because my hon. Friend has done an excellent job of setting out the landscape of the problem and what needs to happen, so I will skip straight to what we will do to fix this. We know that legislation needs to be introduced. He challenged me on the timetable for that, and I will respond. We are committed to introducing legislation to plug this gap. We intend to create a new statutory regime for freehold homeowners based on the rights that leaseholders have, which would ensure that estate management charges must be reasonably incurred, that services provided are of an acceptable standard and that there is a right to challenge the reasonableness of charges at the property tribunal. We need to end this fleecehold situation where homeowners who thought they had bought a home to live in—their own piece of property, with their own front door—are subject to abuse and find these charges escalating out of all proportion to the services provided.

We will also give a right to change the provider of maintenance services by applying to the tribunal for the appointment of a manager. That can be useful if the homeowner is dissatisfied with the service they are receiving and there is significant failure by the estate management provider to meet its obligations. We will take action to tackle these unreasonable costs and the lack of performance and service delivery by these companies. We will go further in time and will consider how to introduce a right to manage for freehold home- owners once we have considered the complexities of the Law Commission’s report.

I turn to the questions that my hon. Friend asked. He asked whether I would meet him and other concerned colleagues to discuss the detail of these issues. I am aware that we only have a short time today, and he has raised many complex issues. I am happy to meet him to discuss this further. That is important, because this is a big change, and we are tackling many areas of law.

My hon. Friend rightly challenged me on the numerous commitments made by Ministers at the Dispatch Box to ensure that these measures are introduced. Clearly, it is beyond my pay grade to pre-empt what the King’s Speech will contain, but my hon. Friend rightly pointed to not only the letter from the Prime Minister but repeated assurances from myself, which I will repeat today, and from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that this issue is top of the list of priorities for our Department. We take it very seriously, and we fully intend to bring forward legislation to implement the changes as soon as parliamentary time allows. That is the plan, and we remain committed to it.

My hon. Friend asked me whether there will be any dilution of the current commitments. The straight answer is no. We remain committed to addressing all the imbalance facing freehold homeowners, and we will legislate so that freehold homeowners have the right to challenge the reasonableness of charges and to go to the tribunal to appoint a new management company.

My hon. Friend asked me when this legislation will be introduced. Of course, we always want to bring in changes that will make a difference to people when this is having an impact on their household budgets. We all share the desire to bring legislation in as soon as possible. As soon as the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament, we will strain every sinew to get these changes on to the statute book, so that people can use them—that is what we all want to see.

My hon. Friend referenced the CMA market study into house building. He will be reassured to know that this study does not in any way dilute the Government’s commitments; in fact, it complements them, and it might suggest other actions for the Government. As he said, there are many aspects of this situation and many problems that we need to fix.

My hon. Friend asked me whether we can write to companies reminding them of their obligations and calling for accountability and transparency. They need to know that change is coming, and I want to reiterate that today from the Dispatch Box. As the Minister responsible for this, I receive many pieces of correspondence from colleagues across the House and people across the country. The changes proposed by the Government are much needed. These estate management companies should be on notice, and I repeat that today. The Government have been very clear that all charges should be reasonable and clearly communicated, and we are wholly committed to strengthening freeholders’ rights on these estates.

[Fiona Bruce]

I am very encouraged by what the Minister is saying. Actually, some charges, rather than being reasonable, should be not there at all. Let us take play areas as an example. Will the Minister consider whether local authorities should take over a play area if, for example, it has been created as a result of an agreement with the developer? Such play areas are used not just by the residents whose properties the green area fronts but by anyone in the local area, freely. Will the Minister discuss with local authorities and the Local Government Association how to prevent situations where residents are completely unfairly burdened, and ensure that local services are taken over by local authorities where they should be?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, which is one that I am familiar with from my constituency. It is an issue that I am sure we have all faced in one form or another, and it causes considerable frustration, annoyance and anger among local residents who have bought those properties and expect to have those facilities there. They have paid good money for the houses that they have moved into.

I will certainly discuss that issue with my hon. Friend further; there are a number of legal frameworks that we may be able to use to assist with that. I will commit to writing to her with a bit more detail on that point, because I fear that I will not be able to do it justice in the Chamber, but we will introduce secondary legislation on the back of the Bill that we intend to introduce that will bring a considerable advance in the amount of clarity that already exists pertaining to these matters and many others.

To revert to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and his call for us to write to all the management companies, much as that would appear to be a sensible approach, unfortunately, it would prove rather more difficult in practice. It is very difficult to track down where all these companies are, their addresses, and who actually runs them. What I can certainly commit to do, though, is put information on gov.uk making it very clear to those companies what the obligations on them should be.

With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will bring my remarks to a close. I finish by thanking again my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for all the work he has done with his colleagues; my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for her really useful contributions; and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), my neighbour in Worcestershire, who has also contributed to the research. I reiterate that it should always be clear to potential homebuyers what the arrangements are, but we know that very often, it is not; that is the root cause of some of the problems that we have faced. We think it is pure justice that homeowners must have effective ways to get things put right when they have a problem with their housing. That is why we remain wholeheartedly committed to legislating, when parliamentary time allows, to empower those freehold homeowners so that they can better hold the estate management company to account. I thank the whole House for the time it has taken to consider these important matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Future of Social Housing

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under you, Mr Paisley. Before I start, may I seek your guidance? How much time do we have for the debate?

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

You have 10 minutes, Minister; we probably have another 12 minutes left.

[Rachel Maclean]

Thank you—I will crack on, then. I thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for today’s really important debate. It is a pleasure to be here and to respond for the very first time on this particular issue in this Chamber.

The hon. Member powerfully articulated the case for building more social homes not just in his constituency, but across the country—that is reflected in the Members here. It goes without saying that that is an objective we all very much share. I will be responding to the comments made by Members, both in the course of my speech and at the end, and I thank every Member for making powerful contributions.

I start by reaffirming the unshakeable commitment of the Government to driving up both the quality and quantity of this nation’s social housing stock. It is a core tenet of our levelling-up agenda, and that has been reflected in recent years, starting with our affordable homes programme. The Government have been clear that they are entirely committed to increasing the supply of affordable housing in the country. That is why we launched the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme in 2020, with a commitment to deliver tens of thousands of affordable homes for both sale and rent.

At this point, I would like to say a bit about the social rent component of our affordable homes programme. We recognise how vital these homes are to building and maintaining thriving communities, and I was particularly struck by the very fluent remarks of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on this point; she really brought it to life and I thank her for doing so.

I know that every hon. Member will agree that homes for social rent are a fundamental part of our housing stock—a lifeline for those who would struggle to obtain a home at market rates. It was absolutely right for us to bring social rent homes into the scope of the affordable homes programme, as the Government did in 2018. Since then, we have doubled down in our levelling-up White Paper on our commitment to increase the supply of social rented homes, while also improving the quality of housing across the board in both the social and private rented sectors. The affordable homes programme has been changed to meet this commitment, with further increases to the share of social rented homes we are planning to deliver.

However, although social rent is a key element to our approach, we are also a Government who truly believe in supporting aspiring homeowners to take their first step on to the housing ladder. We understand what a difference that increased sense of security can make to all aspects of someone’s life and the lives of their family. That is why home ownership continues to be a fundamental part of the affordable homes programme offer and we will continue to deliver a significant number of homes through our shared ownership tenure.

[Alex Cunningham]

At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister dodged the question as to why the Conservative party was reneging on its manifesto commitment to build 300,000 homes a year. Can the Minister answer the question and say why that has happened?

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Gentleman must be telepathic, because I was just about to come to that point. We are more broadly focused on accelerating housing delivery to make home buying a reality for a new generation, so we must build homes in the places that people want to live and work. As the Prime Minister said, and I agree with him, we want decisions about homes to be driven locally, which is why we need to get more local plans in place to deliver the homes that our communities need. We are working tirelessly across the country with our local partners and we intend to deliver 300,000 homes per year, as our commitment set out, so that we create a more sustainable and affordable housing market that benefits everybody.

However, I am not here only to talk about commitments, because it will make no difference unless we deliver on those commitments. We are making progress in our mission to increase housing supply and the numbers back that up. Many Members talked about numbers; let me give them some. Since 2010, we have delivered over 632,000 affordable homes, including 441,000 affordable homes for rent, over 162,000 of which were for social rent.

I hope that the hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), will forgive me for making the comparison, but it is worth noting that this Government have delivered more affordable homes in the last 12 years than were delivered in the preceding 13 years of a Labour Government. Actually, I note that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) agrees with me. He said very clearly—

[Mike Amesbury]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

When I have finished this point, I will. The hon. Member for Stockton North said very clearly that the last Labour Government did not build enough social homes, either to rent or to buy, and I agree with him. [Interruption.] I will let the hon. Member for Weaver Vale intervene on me, but I want to answer his point. He has set out that he thinks a Labour Government are the answer to this situation; I disagree. A Labour Government are not the answer—the last Labour Government did not build enough affordable homes, social homes or council homes. If we look at Labour-run Wales, we see that they have an appalling record of building social housing.

Two London MPs spoke in the debate to highlight problems in London. I would like to remind—

[Matthew Pennycook]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

When I have finished my remarks. I would like to remind the House that the Mayor of London is responsible for housing in London. He is a Labour Mayor of London and the problems there lie firmly at his door.

Many Members have also spoken about councils. I would like to point out my own local council’s record. Conservative-run Redditch Borough Council is delivering council housing. That is happening now that the Conservatives are in control of the borough. When Labour was in control of Redditch Borough Council, it delivered precisely zero.

[Mike Amesbury]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

rose—

[Rachel Maclean]

I give way, first to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, who first asked me to.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I should have welcomed her to her place, so I will get that on the record now.

This debate is about the future of social homes. I keep referring to that vandalised version of the definition of “affordable homes”; many of them are not affordable. On the track record of the previous Labour Government, let us compare social housing build. In those last few years of a Labour Government, considerably more social homes were built than under this Government—not enough, as hon. Members have said, but, going forward, the next Labour Government definitely will build enough.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Member for his remarks. I listened carefully to the response of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich on the Front Bench. What I heard is our agreement about the need to build more social homes to rent or buy, and Government Members also set that out very clearly. What I did not hear—from any Opposition Member—was a clear answer on how they will do that, so we await that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

No. With respect, the hon. Gentleman has had his time, and I need to get these points on the record.

I want to talk about what we are doing. To support continued delivery, in March this year we announced that local authorities will have access to a new concessionary Public Works Loan Board interest rate for council house building from June this year. Local authorities have a real part to play in that endeavour. We are giving them the flexibility to make locally led decisions that deliver the best deal for their communities.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will create a new infrastructure levy—many Members touched on that, so it is important that we set the record straight. The new infrastructure levy will capture more land value uplift. That will enable us to deliver even more affordable housing, which is badly needed.

Local authorities will continue to benefit from the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme, which we have discussed today, along with the scrapping of the housing revenue account borrowing cap. They will also benefit from greater flexibility, which someone mentioned from a sedentary position, in how they can use receipts from right-to-buy sales. I strongly urge councils to make use of those measures so that we can see more new homes built in the places where they are needed the most.

We briefly touched on social housing standards. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities could not have been clearer in his statements to the House when he said that every person in this country, no matter where they are from, what they do or how much they earn, deserves to live somewhere that is decent, safe and secure.

The tragedy of Awaab Ishak’s death made clear to us all the devastating consequences of inaction. The time for promises of improvements is well and truly over. Awaab’s law has been added to the Bill, with new requirements for landlords to address hazards such as damp and mould in social homes within a fixed period.

I want to finish by thanking all the Members who have contributed. We are committed to the abolition of section 21 eviction orders—

[Hon. Members]

When?

[Rachel Maclean]

Very soon—Members do not have long to wait. They will have all their questions answered in due course.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) for his excellent speech on social housing. I reassure him that social housing will be part of the infrastructure levy, and it was a pleasure to meet his small builders and business experts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) for her considerable expertise in the sector and for bringing to us the Operation Homemaker programme. I thank her for all the work she is doing to help us.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who highlighted similar issues in Northern Ireland; the hon. Members for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), for Stockton North and for Vauxhall; the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who will know that we are committed to introducing the measures she has called for to control Airbnbs; and the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). I thank everybody who has contributed. We will not stand for any tenant being mistreated—[Interruption.] I forgot to thank the hon. Gentleman from the Scottish National party Front Bench, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), for his contribution. That is all I will say on the matter—[Laughter.] We are committed to working with all hon. Members across the House to ensure that we get the safe and decent homes people deserve.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Minister. It is clear that Mr Stephens needs to try harder to get noticed. Mr Amesbury, you have one minute to wind up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

2. If he will make an assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the potential merits of updating the report on the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford growth arc published by the National Infrastructure Commission in 2017.

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

The Government completed a 12-week public consultation gathering views to shape a vision for an Oxford-Cambridge arc spatial framework. We are currently considering the responses to that consultation and will provide more information in due course.

[Richard Fuller]

Over the past decade, housing growth in Bedfordshire has been two and a half times the national average, with acute pressures on our GPs, dentists and other local services. Today’s progress review by the National Infrastructure Commission confirmed what many of us have always known—namely, that East West Rail is an excuse for even greater housing development in Bedfordshire and the region. Will my hon. Friend please meet me and ensure that we do not progress housing growth in the Ox-Cam arc before the shortages in services are settled?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of his constituents, which are shared by many communities. We know how important it is that infrastructure is delivered alongside housing growth. That is why, through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, we will require local authorities to produce an infrastructure strategy as part of the infrastructure levy. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it further.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Last week London Economics reported that the University of Cambridge contributes almost £30 billion per annum and supports 86,000 jobs across the whole country. When Cambridge does well, the whole country does well. The arc is the key to future UK prosperity, so will the Government play their part by giving local leaders the tools and access to investment so that they can use the wealth that we create to set the stage for Labour to achieve our mission to be the fastest-growing economy in the G7?

[Rachel Maclean]

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), we are considering the report of the National Infrastructure Commission, but this Government are committed to levelling up and to devolution across the country. We saw in the Budget, delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, that we have devolved significant powers to Mayors across the country, such as Andy Street in the west midlands. That is the right thing to do to drive prosperity across the country.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

3. What recent progress his Department has made on its consultation on the national planning policy framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to help ensure that planning authorities prioritise housebuilding on brownfield sites; and if he will make a statement.

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

This Government are committed to making the most of brownfield land. The national planning policy framework sets out that planning policies and decisions should give “substantial weight” to using suitable brownfield land, and through our brownfield funds we are investing significantly in supporting redevelopment and release of brownfield sites for housing. We have also committed to launching a review to identify further measures that would prioritise the use of brownfield land.

[Wendy Morton]

Under the leadership of West Midlands Mayor Andy Street and Conservative councils such as that in Walsall, we are demonstrating the value of regenerating brownfield land to create the homes we need while regenerating communities and protecting precious greenfield in areas such as mine around Streetly and Aldridge. I welcome the £100 million deal we received as part of the trailblazer devolution deal, but will my hon. Friend continue to look at the possibility of creating a register of brownfield land, as a further tool to deliver a brownfield-first approach?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her consistent advocacy in championing this vital issue. That is absolutely what the Government are doing. We are introducing a number of measures, as she set out, to support that brownfield-first approach, including requiring every local authority to publish a register of local brownfield land suitable for housing in their area.

[Vicky Ford]

In Chelmsford there are many households living in temporary accommodation. New affordable homes are being built on greenfield sites, but that is not keeping pace with the need. Will the Government look at better ways to use brownfield sites, such as office block to residential conversions, to help to deliver more affordable homes?

[Rachel Maclean]

My right hon. Friend is doing a superb job of pushing forward affordable homes for her constituents in Chelmsford, and we are wholly committed to that shared agenda. Since 2010, over 829,000 households have been helped to buy a home by Conservative Governments. That is a massive achievement. However, it is vital to prioritise brownfield sites such as those in Chelmsford, and we recently consulted on proposed policies to further encourage the use of those small sites. I am happy to meet her to discuss that further.

[Mr Robertson]

Does the Minister agree that prioritising brownfield sites is important particularly to take the pressure off small villages, which face many speculative planning applications and do not have the infrastructure to support them?

[Rachel Maclean]

I know my hon. Friend expresses the concerns of his constituents who live in those villages in the Tewkesbury area. That is why we have already introduced range of policy and funding initiatives to support the development of brownfield land. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will go much further to empower local leaders to regenerate those towns, cities and villages by introducing a new infrastructure levy, which will capture a higher land value uplift to enable more infrastructure to be delivered alongside housing.

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

On 1 March, the Secretary of State received a letter written by 10 civic societies from Britain’s biggest cities, including Coventry, about the 35% housing uplift. Given the widespread condemnation of that arbitrary target, will the Minister meet me to explain why it has been imposed on Coventry?

[Rachel Maclean]

I will be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss housing targets in Coventry. In the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill we have set out the measures under which local areas will have more power to ensure that the right housing is built in the right places. I am happy to discuss that with her.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

In Yorkshire, there are tens of thousands of families desperate for affordable housing. CPRE, The Countryside Charity, says that there are 115,000 potential brownfield sites in our county alone, and tens of thousands of more are land banked, with planning consent already given for housing. Yet there is executive housing popping up like mushrooms in a forcing shed all over my constituency on the green belt. Is the Minister happy that her legacy will be a Government that poured cement and tarmac all over Yorkshire’s green and pleasant land?

[Rachel Maclean]

I think that this Government will be extremely proud of our legacy of delivering affordable homes and homes for first-time buyers all over the country. We need a locally led planning system; that is why we are delivering measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to require more infrastructure and a brownfield-first approach, backed by billions of pounds-worth of funding.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

The statutory requirements for the houses that we build today fall far short of the challenges of a changing climate. Humber is the second most flood-prone region in the UK after London, with more than 190,000 at-risk homes, which equates to a third of all properties in the region. Will the Minister consider urgently introducing to the national planning framework stricter statutory requirements for flood protection and mitigation?

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady raises a vital issue. We recognise the importance of protecting communities from flood risk. That is why we have been clear in the national planning policy framework that areas of flood risk should be avoided and that, where that is not possible, all risks should be mitigated. That is further supported by the flood risk and coastal change guidance, which has been updated. I am very happy to discuss that in more detail with her as it affects her communities.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the introduction of voter identification requirements on voter turnout for local elections in May 2023.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

8. What steps he plans to take to sanction landlords who do not meet their obligations to vulnerable tenants.

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

In our White Paper, we set out plans to reform the private rented sector, giving renters greater security and safer, higher-quality homes. We will introduce legislation in this Parliament.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I listened to the Minister speak to the Renters’ Reform Coalition last week. She handled the questions very well, and I was pleased to hear her announce that a Bill would be introduced by autumn of this year. But since she gave the speech, 900 people have been served section 21 notices. Every week that we wait means thousands of people being evicted. Today, her Government have announced tougher measures making it easier to evict people. Will she give me assurances that renters will be protected, not forced out, by her new Bill?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his kind words, and I am delighted that he was there to hear me reaffirm the Government’s commitment to abolish section 21 evictions as soon as parliamentary time allows. We are levelling up the private rented sector to produce more safeguards for renters and allow more renters to live in safe and decent homes.

[James Sunderland]

I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. Bracknell is blessed with many people who rent their accommodation from private landlords, and it is really important that we do the best we can for them. But by the same token, good law is balanced law. Will she please outline what is being done to protect landlords against tenants who do not fulfil their responsibilities?

[Rachel Maclean]

As I said at the public event, good landlords have absolutely nothing to fear from our reforms, which are right, proportionate and balanced. As my hon. Friend is asking, we will strengthen the grounds for landlords to use to regain possession, including when a tenant is at fault. That includes making it easier and quicker to evict tenants who commit antisocial behaviour, as set out in the action plan today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.

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

On the answer that the Minister has just given, I should say that the Select Committee recommended that when section 21 goes there has to be a means of dealing speedily with cases of antisocial behaviour. I am pleased that recommendations are made in the antisocial behaviour action plan to prioritise such cases in the courts. But antisocial behaviour also occurs in the social housing sector, and it can often take a year or more to get to court. Will the Minister agree that if we are prioritising such cases in the private rented sector, we should have a similar system for prioritising them for social housing as well?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much; it was a real pleasure to discuss those issues and many others when we met last week to talk about the renters reform Bill. He has made a very good point, and I have committed to take it away and look at it with my officials.

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

Blackpool has a significantly higher than average proportion of private rented houses. I am sure that my landlords will be delighted to hear about the increased flexibility that they will have to deal with more problematic tenants. However, has the Minister considered extending the provisions on mould and damp that will now apply to the social rented sector to private rented properties as well, to level up the private rented sector?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for drawing the House’s attention to the issue of damp and mould. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been extremely active in pushing forward improvements to social rented housing. It is right that we should level that up to private rented housing. We will be bringing forward the decent home standards in the private rented sector in the renters reform Bill.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

11. Whether he plans to take steps to help tackle significant increases in service charges for leaseholders and social housing tenants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

T2. Next month, as I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, is National Pet Month. Sadly, I have been contacted by a number of constituents renting in the private sector who have been refused pets. Will he confirm whether he is still committed to enshrining, in the renters reform Bill, the right for tenants to request a pet and for such a request not to be unreasonably refused?

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

May I say, as a dog lover myself, that my hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that issue. Pets can bring joy, happiness and comfort, which is why the Government will prevent landlords from unreasonably refusing a tenant’s request to have a pet. We will give landlords more confidence by allowing them to require insurance to cover pet damage.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

T5. Home ownership is an important milestone in many of my constituents’ lives. Many have excitedly bought new build homes, particularly on the Harron Homes estate in Wickersley, or the Redmile estate in Aston, only to move in and find major problems that developers are refusing to make good. Does the Secretary of State agree that they should rectify them immediately?

[Rachel Maclean]

That sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing it to our attention. We are committing to providing buyers of new build houses with strong powers of redress. We have legislated to establish the new homes ombudsman scheme in the Building Safety Act 2022, membership of which will be mandatory for developers.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

T6. The one good thing about the Elections Act 2022 was giving overseas voters the right to vote. But with the election likely no more than 18 months away, there is a real risk that they will again be denied their vote. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the progress of the regulations and provide assurances that they will be in place for the next election?

Ballot Secrecy Bill [Lords]

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great pleasure to be at the Dispatch Box today to set out the Government’s full support for the Bill, which makes important changes to tackle so-called family voting. We have had an excellent debate, and it is a pleasure to see so much cross-party support for legislation of this kind. All of us are here because of the integrity of our democratic process. It is lovely to have consensus on issues such as this, as we sometimes do, particularly on Fridays.

The Bill seeks to enhance the integrity of voting at elections and to safeguard our democracy against those who would harm it, and I therefore welcome the progress that it has made in both Houses. Today gives us an excellent chance to see it speed its way towards the statute book. The new offence will be a hugely important addition to the various other measures, arising from the Elections Act 2022, that the Government are implementing to protect our electoral system against those who would undermine it.

As other Members have mentioned, the Government tabled a number of amendments to the Bill during its Committee stage in the other place in order to address issues with its specific drafting. Those amendments were designed to prevent the offence from criminalising innocent behaviour, particularly when two people are at a polling booth, so that only the one intending to influence the other is caught. The original drafting would have inadvertently caused the victim of the coercion to have also committed an offence. The amendments were also designed to secure exceptions for companions of disabled electors so that they could continue to be able to provide assistance if necessary. They were agreed to in the other place, and no further amendments have been tabled in either House.

It gives me great pleasure to thank all the parliamentarians who have engaged with the Bill, both in this place and the other place. I thank my noble Friend Lord Hayward, who I can see in the Gallery. He has been instrumental in driving forward the legislation by sharing his knowledge and experience on electoral matters and sponsoring the Bill in the other place. I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for his expertise and for setting out so well—both today and in his Westminster Hall debate—the need for this important piece of legislation.

It has been a huge pleasure to hear speeches from many Members today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Blackpool South (Scott Benton), for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). It falls to me to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who responded for the Government in the earlier debate, and other Members who have given this legislation the benefit of their scrutiny, including my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), as well as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who aided the legislation along the way—it is strange not to see him in his place; we are all poorer without him.

[Peter Gibson]

The Minister may or may not be aware that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is celebrating his birthday tomorrow. Will she join me and everyone else in this House in congratulating him?

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend has done me a huge service, allowing me to say a very hearty “Happy birthday” to the hon. Member for Strangford, who I also understand has tabled an early-day motion to thank Dolly Parton. I suppose it is probably quite unconventional to support an EDM from the Dispatch Box, but if you will make an exception in the spirit of the occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday and hope that he is serenaded by Dolly Parton—I cannot think of anything better.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) for her contribution in Committee, and the hon. Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for their interest in and engagement with the Bill.

I also thank my officials at the Department for Levelling Up, my private secretary James Selby, and the policy team—namely, Peter Richardson and Guy Daws—for their tireless work in supporting the Bill. I know how much effort they have put into ensuring that it proceeds smoothly. I am very grateful to His Majesty’s official Opposition, particularly the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), for all the work that they have done to support the Bill.

The Government take the integrity of our electoral system extremely seriously. We warmly welcome the changes being made, which will make such an important contribution to strengthening the integrity of voting. The Bill will ensure that there is clarity in the law so that presiding officers have the confidence to challenge inappropriate behaviour where it occurs and to stamp down on any opportunity for coercion to take place at our elections. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Middlesbrough Development Corporation

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a real pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of the Department and the Government. I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) for securing this important debate, which I know will be of great interest to residents of Middlesbrough who are watching and thinking about how to vote in the local elections.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) for setting out so superlatively Labour’s anti-growth and anti-opportunity position. He was ably supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), and for Darlington (Peter Gibson). I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position and to respond directly to the points made by, and the allegations, misinformation and innuendo from, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough.

The hon. Gentleman will know that between 23 June and 4 August last year, the Mayor of the Tees Valley Combined Authority carried out a public consultation on a proposal to designate a mayoral development area for Middlesbrough town centre. As part of that, a development corporation would be established, to be known as the Middlesbrough development corporation. Middlesbrough Council responded positively to the consultation, so there is no way that any kind of democratic deficit can be claimed.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)]

Our Labour-led council lobbied against even any discussion of a mayoral development corporation for Stockton, despite the millions that it could bring in investment; it put petty party politics ahead of the interests of local people. Will my hon. Friend confirm that if the election changes the leadership of the local council, the Department will be willing to get round the table with me, the Mayor and the new council leadership to look at what opportunities we can bring to Stockton?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend. The Government will always stand squarely behind local areas that are doing everything they can to level up. That is the basis on which this Government were elected.

Following the consultation in October, the Mayor of Tees Valley, Ben Houchen—who, I remind the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, was democratically elected—wrote to inform the Secretary of State that he was designating an area of land in Middlesbrough as an MDC. It is important to stress that the designation was submitted following unanimous agreement by the combined authority’s cabinet, of which the Mayor of Middlesbrough Council is a member.

It is completely right that we give these Mayors the tools and resources they need to succeed. Obviously, a Mayor cannot unilaterally create one of these corporations; public consultation is required, and that took place in this case. The consent of the members of the combined authority is needed, and the process allows Parliament to have its say. There is a clear, transparent, democratic process, and it has been followed in the establishment of this corporation. The conspiracy construction that the hon. Gentleman is putting on these events is nothing more than a last-ditch attempt to stand in the way of life chances and opportunities for the people he represents. I am proud to be on the other side of the debate, and will do absolutely everything I can, along with my hon. Friends, to level up areas that so desperately need it, as he has said.

[Alex Cunningham]

Can the Minister guarantee that none of the assets transferred to the Middlesborough development corporation will end up in private hands, perhaps through a joint venture? Will the same people who have benefited from other developments in the area benefit yet again?

[Rachel Maclean]

There is growing consensus across the House that in the past, too many decisions about local areas have been made by politicians here in Whitehall. It is not for me to stand in the way of the best interests of the democratically elected Middlesborough Council and the Mayor of Tees Valley, Ben Houchen, who is promoting the best interests of local people in seeking to regenerate the area. The obvious way to ensure levelling up is through devolution, and that involves putting power, money and control in the hands of those powerful, democratically accountable local leaders.

[Jill Mortimer]

I hear a lot of chuntering from Opposition Members about things not being democratic. For 57 years, Hartlepool was ignored by the Labour party. I campaigned and won a by-election not two years ago on a positive campaign about positive change, not on the hate and spite spun by Labour. It has not yet been two years, but we have already seen massive improvements and investment in my constituency. It received £25 million from the towns fund deal and £16.5 million from the levelling-up fund. Many more millions are now coming from the Mayor, Ben Houchen, for our town. People are seeing positive change and a difference, and it is time we all started talking up Teesside.

[Rachel Maclean]

I have nothing but huge admiration for my hon. Friend. She put her case so well. The Government are squarely backing democratically elected local Mayors. I remind the hon. Member for Middlesbrough of how much power and accountability we have given effective Mayors from all parties, including the Labour Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham; the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street; and the Labour Mayor of Liverpool, Steve Rotheram.

It is important to stress that the Secretary of State is required by law to establish any development corporation requested by the Mayor for a development area and give it the title as requested—in this case, the Middlesbrough development corporation. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough has tried to make out that a land grab is under way, but I have set out very clearly that proper process has been followed.

We want the planned multimillion-pound investment in Middlesborough, spearheaded by that corporation, to go ahead. It will bring big improvements to culture and education, including through the expansion of the Northern School of Art, and improvements to local transport through the development of Middlesborough train station.

The Middlesbrough development corporation is just the next chapter in the town’s levelling-up story. It is proudly backed by the Conservative Mayor, Ben Houchen, and my Conservative colleagues representing Teesside. Long may that continue. This economic resurgence is being led, in no small part, by the leadership of Tees Valley Combined Authority. I stand squarely against the allegations that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has made, and I will continue to work night and day to level up Middlesbrough and Teesside.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Thank you for the feisty debate.        

Question put and agreed to.