Unadopted Estates and Roads

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) on securing this important debate, which is characteristic of the type of issues that he champions. I do not think this issue gets nearly enough coverage, and it is great that we have the opportunity to debate it this morning. It is one of those issues that, exactly as he says, turns dreams into nightmares and can ruin people’s lives or make people’s lives just that bit harder. It is exactly the sort of issue that he is passionate about and that he always uses his platform to raise, and I am grateful that he has. I am also grateful for other colleagues’ contributions.

I am grateful not just for my hon. Friend’s excellent diagnosis of the problem, but for charitably offering solutions to the Government. I am also grateful to him for raising these issues in his ten-minute rule Bill, which is a good way for Members of Parliament to raise issues with the Government and to hear our policy ideas. I make it clear that we support the underlying goals of his Bill, which aligns very nicely with our manifesto commitment to end the injustice of fleecehold estates.

It is important to recognise that, yes, this is an issue for my hon. Friend’s constituents, but we are also seeing it across the country. From Ebbsfleet up to Stockton and, in the middle, South Derbyshire—so good that it is nearly Nottingham—residents are facing these growing challenges, and we must be there to support them.

As the Minister with responsibility for building safety, I often say that in my area, and across Government more generally, we are trying to serve twin moral imperatives. The first is to make sure that people have a home. I think every day of the 6,000 children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and the 180,000 children in temporary accommodation the previous night. We have to make sure that people have homes, but we also have to ensure that they are good homes and that, exactly as my hon. Friend says, we are not setting up people to fail. We have to make sure those homes are warm and dry, safe from fire and, in this case, do not come with overheads or lower-quality infrastructure that make owning, renting or living in that home a nightmare and a battle. Those are the Government’s goals, and they are perfectly compatible

Exactly as my hon. Friend says, this issue has an impact on both supply and local authority budgets, so it is right that we take our time to assemble the best available evidence to make sure that we get the best possible change, but we appreciate that we need to get on and move at pace.

I will start close to where my hon. Friend finished, with the Competition and Markets Authority’s study of house building. The study was published last year and provides evidence for what I suspect we already knew from our constituency mailbags—over the past few years, we have seen significant growth in the number of unadopted estates. The study talks about some of the causes behind that trend, concluding that this practice is detrimental to consumers.

The Government agree with the CMA’s conclusion that, overall, the house building market is not delivering for consumers and has consistently failed to do so over successive decades. We have looked very closely at the report’s recommendations, which call for measures to strengthen protection for existing homeowners and for the Government to mandate adoption of all new estates and implement common adoptable standards for infrastructure on those new estates. We accepted many of the recommendations last October, but we believe that further work is required in some areas—I will talk a little about that. I take to heart what my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and for Dartford (Jim Dickson) said about the importance of certainty and fairness, which are absent from this process. Without them, people cannot build their lives properly.

Ms Butler, you will not be surprised to hear me say that, as it so often does, this starts with individual rights—residents’ rights on unadopted housing estates. As we have heard, residents living on privately managed estates with unadopted amenities are struggling with a range of problems, including poor service, excessive bills and limited to no transparency about how money is spent, onerous restrictions on the title deeds to their properties—my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin raised a particularly egregious case—and a general lack of control over how the estate is managed. That speaks to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire.

The CMA found that approximately 20% of freehold estates have what is known as an embedded management company set in the title deeds. It found that residents may find it extremely hard—indeed, sometimes impossible —to remove or change an embedded management company, no matter what quality of service they receive. Of course, that cannot be right. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin talked about a lack of accountability. Well, what could be a greater lack of accountability?

In the spirit of urgency that my hon. Friend talked about, in the immediate term we need to introduce protections for residential freeholders on already-constructed freehold estates. As hon. Members may be aware, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, passed by the previous Parliament, created a regulatory framework that will provide for exactly the sorts of protections and rights to which my hon. Friend referred. It provides for standardised demands, an annual report, a right for homeowners to challenge the reasonableness of charges levied, a requirement for estate managers to consult homeowners where the anticipated cost exceeds an appropriate amount, and a right for residential freeholders to apply to a tribunal to appoint a manager in the event of serious management failure. That is the prize before us.

As the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), made clear in his written ministerial statement last November, we need to act as quickly as feasible to implement those provisions, but they need to be enacted with detailed secondary legislation. We want to get this right, not least because these are, at their heart, extremely technical matters, and the last thing we want to do is give hope by promising change, and for the change not to deliver because it was not operable or effective. We will bring these measures into effect as soon as possible, but we first need to consult on the technical detail. We will publish the consultation document later this year. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin said that we need real pace, and my hon. Friend the Housing Minister and I have heard that strongly.

More broadly, at the heart of this, having the choice of a managing agent is really important, whether for unadopted estates or buildings in which lots of people live together. Sometimes residents step up—who knows their community better than they do?—but those are hard jobs. I have met many resident management companies in the course of my work, and there is an awful lot for them to step up and do. That is why there are sometimes frustrations. We agreed with what the CMA said about RMCs needing the right guidance and support to do the job themselves, where they choose to do so.

We also know that for many buildings or estates, there will be a really important role for managing agents. When done well, managing agents are an important part of enhancing communities and individual lives. Where that is not the case—too often, it is not—they can have all the detrimental impacts we have heard about. That is why the Government are so committed to strengthening the regulation of managing agents of leasehold properties and estate managers of freehold estates. We believe that, at a minimum, there should be mandatory professional qualifications for managing agents, whether they manage a building or an estate. We will consult on that measure later this year. That is an important part of driving up standards in the industry to make sure that all managing agents are making the positive contribution that we know they want to make, and that they should and can make when done well.

The point on adoption is often around the quality of infrastructure. Local authorities have significant challenges, and nobody expects new builds to add more burden—certainly not through the provision of poor housing or the infrastructure that supports it. Traditionally, without the challenges we see today, local authorities and water companies would adopt those respective parts of a new residential estate, whether it be the roads, the drains or the sewers, and they would set clear standards and provide oversight to ensure these were delivered to adoptable standards. Where that has not been the case, the responsibility for ongoing maintenance falls on the residents. For some on the adoption journey, which in many cases can take more than a decade because of these ongoing concerns, they pick up the bill with no resolution in sight—they live in that twilight zone.

We are conscious that, at the heart of this, developers have to build to a good standard. Otherwise there is poorer infrastructure and a lack of adoptability, never mind the lack of redress for homeowners and the lack of oversight. There are too many examples where developments have been left unfinished for years, and we do not think homeowners should be left in that limbo.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin talks about complexity, and we will have more complex schemes with different ownerships, tenures and types—we want that as a Government—but that will add a degree of complexity. Similarly, there are greater expectations on developers, for good reasons. Whether it is sustainable drainage systems, biodiversity net gain, electric vehicle charging points, playgrounds or sports pitches, they all make this more challenging, which is why the clarity on standards that we intend to set from the centre is so important.

My hon. Friend has made a powerful case, which has been reflected strongly in the interventions from colleagues and in the mailbags of all hon. and right hon. Members. I am grateful that he has given them this hearing. It is vital that we take on this issue in the round to make sure that we get it right and secure a change that delivers for people. That is why we will seek views from a wide range of parties, including local authorities, management companies, developers and, crucially, freeholders and residents. I hope colleagues will help to bring the voices of their constituents into the consultations.

I make it clear that we intend to act. There is a clear commitment to act, and we have a legislative framework to do so. We will see action in this area. We want to move at the best pace that we can, and we know at the heart of this issue is a significant prize: improving the lives of many people across the country. We are very committed to doing so.

Question put and agreed to.

Grenfell Tower Fire: Eighth Anniversary

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for securing this opportunity to mark this weekend’s eighth anniversary of the tragedy at Grenfell Tower and the loss of 72 innocent lives, including, as we have heard, 18 children. Time has not diminished the horror, the pain or the impact of that day—the lives of families and the community changed forever.

My hon. Friend has raised an awful lot of important points, and I hope to be able to cover them all. They are in keeping with his outstanding advocacy for his community. In the building safety space, there is no Member I speak to more than him; we will be together again tomorrow. I want to put it on the record that he pushes and presses me, quite rightly, in the interests of his community, day in, day out.

The most important tribute, though, is to the community, because for eight long years they have campaigned and fought for truth, justice and change. The Deputy Prime Minister and I are resolute in listening to them. We want to ensure that the bereaved, survivors, next of kin and resident voices are heard, including at the heart of Government. We will continue to work until the lessons from the Grenfell Tower fire have changed the system that led to that tragedy.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the Minister for his words and for attending the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to give an update on behalf of the Government. The Committee heard from Grenfell United and survivors that for far too long social housing tenants were being ignored and dismissed. There is no recommendation or terms of reference in the inquiry on race or discrimination, but does he agree that the discrimination of disabled and black and minority ethnic residents was a contributing factor in the tenants being failed?

[Alex Norris]

It has always been clear to me, in my conversations with the bereaved and survivors and with families and next of kin, that the demographics in terms of race speak their own story, and that is similarly the case with disability. That is why it has informed our policy in PEEPs, which I will talk to shortly, as well as our entire agenda around residents’ voice in social housing, which I will also come on to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and I were in the very early stages of our time as Members of Parliament in 2017, and I know exactly where I was sitting during the discussions we had then—I can see it but 10 metres from here. As I have said in every debate of this kind since I have been a Minister, if we had said to ourselves then that in eight years we would have achieved as little as we have, we would have thought that a significant failure. It is a significant failure, and I want those watching this debate to know that we understand that. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater said that the progress is glacial. That is exactly right, and it behoves us to change that with real intent. That is my commitment and the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment.

Last September, Sir Martin Moore-Bick published the inquiry’s final report. It is a hugely important staging post and driver for action. The findings were clear: the system failed at every point—public, private, local, national. Families were failed. Residents’ voices were ignored. Dishonest practices were propagated. The Prime Minister has apologised on behalf of the British state for its part in the failures that led to entirely avoidable deaths. I want to repeat the Prime Minister’s words: it should never have happened.

We published our response to the inquiry in February. We accepted the findings and committed to delivering on all 58 recommendations and to going further through a broader approach to reform, including with regard to construction products. Last month we published our progress report on delivery, and we will continue to report on a quarterly basis. The next progress report in September will be a very big one, because we will also publish our full implementation plan, setting out how we will deliver the recommendations. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater that the legacy must be system change.

I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) says about it being a long time, and I know from speaking to the bereaved and survivors that they are frustrated that some of the recommendations will take time. The commitment I will make from this Dispatch Box is that nothing will take a day longer than it has to take. We are working with urgency and intent, and we will be very transparent as we do.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I appreciate that the Minister is working around the clock on this issue. I know that it is very important to him and that there are big challenges in his portfolio. Does he agree that because there are so many competing demands on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, including looking at building safety and the Minister’s new responsibility on fire safety, a clear way to ensure that the Government continue to keep focus on this issue is through a national oversight mechanism? It will help the Government ensure that there are clear deadlines and timeframes for the recommendations, which the Government have rightly accepted.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention; she pre-empts my next point. Before I move on, I want to recognise the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who said that he hopes that we will have opportunities to debate our progress. We have committed to an annual debate in this place about our progress, and we will have those debates until we have delivered on the recommendations.

Turning to oversight, we are committed to transparency, accountability and scrutiny. It is entirely right that the community, having been failed in the ways that they have, want to see very clear accountability. We will record all recommendations made by public inquiries on gov.uk by next summer, backdating it to 2024, so there will be public tracking of inquiry recommendations. That meets the commitment under the Grenfell Tower inquiry review.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green knows that I will refer to the points I made at her Select Committee. The Cabinet Office, as part of its ongoing inquiry work, is exploring how to improve scrutiny and accountability for all inquiry responses, so that actions can be taken more quickly. I would not want to run ahead of that. To address the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), we remain fully committed to a Hillsborough law, which will include a legal duty of candour for public servants and criminal sanctions for those who refuse to comply.

I turn now to justice, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater spoke with real power about. When I talk to the bereaved and survivors about whatever the matter of the day is, they always say to me, “Yes, Alex, but that is not justice yet.” I know that, and the Prime Minister acknowledged last year that the inquiry final report, while exposing the truth, does not yet bring the justice that families rightly deserve. Again, I am aware of the frustration in this area and the strong feeling that accountability has yet to be achieved. We continue to support the independent Metropolitan Police Service as it conducts its investigations—we know how important that is.

I want to touch on the tower itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater said, this will be a poignant anniversary because it will be the final one with the tower as it is. We will continue to work closely with bereaved families, survivors, next of kin and residents as we prepare work to carefully take down Grenfell Tower, starting in the autumn. They will remain at the heart of this work. As we look to the future, we are committed to supporting the independent memorial commission in its important work to create a fitting and lasting memorial determined by the community.

The Deputy Prime Minister and I will continue—as we have throughout—to meet with anyone who wants that, to listen and act on the issues we are raising and, more importantly, the issues they raise with us. I know that there is a lot of anxiety that as the tower is carefully taken down, the moment for the Grenfell community will be forgotten. Again, I want to give an assurance on that. I know that, with these colleagues behind me, that will never be the case, but for the Government it will not be either.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green said, this is a moment of trauma for individuals, so it is crucial that really good mental health support is available for the community. I and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), are raising that with the integrated care board to ensure that the right mental health services are there, the right screening facilities are there, and there is the right screening for children and young people, which is such a community priority. I will work with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater in that venture to ensure that those healthcare services are there.

It is clear and accepted that the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea also failed. The leadership has committed to change and has taken important steps forward, but we still hear from too many residents that they are not getting the experience they should. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have met the leader of the council, and we have challenged the council to become an exemplar as a fitting legacy for this tragedy. We will continue to hold the council to account until residents feel and see the change.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Lancaster West estate. I am conscious that even before that terrible night in 2017, residents there had lived on a building site for a very long time. They say that to me every time I see them. The council has a huge gap in funding—he said it is £85 million and I would say £84 million, but it is a significant gap either way. I will continue to work with him, the residents’ association—I know that its able chair, Mushtaq Lasharie, will press us at every opportunity, as he rightly always does—and the council on how to take the issue forward.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned PEEPs, which has recently become a responsibility of mine and of MHCLG. As he said, we are looking to lay secondary legislation as soon as we can. I am committed to working with disability groups to ensure that the guidance and the toolkit in its implementation is as good as possible. We have committed funding this year, and any future funding will be part of the spending review process, which is coming to its peroration tomorrow.

I agree with my hon. Friend’s points on the pace of remediation. I inherited a trajectory that took us into the 2040s. Our remediation acceleration plan—certainly for buildings above 18 metres with unsafe cladding in a Government scheme—concertinas that to 2029. We will be updating our remediation acceleration plan this summer to push even further on what we can do to get quicker remediation.

My hon. Friend mentioned the challenges around social housing and the impact that has not just on remediation but on building. Those points were very well made. We will announce our longer-term plans in that space shortly.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the Minister for being generous in giving way. One of the issues constantly raised by registered social landlords is that they cannot apply for the building safety remediation. Will we see an update on that in the coming weeks, and perhaps in announcements tomorrow?

[Alex Norris]

On a point of fact, RSLs can access the building safety fund and cladding safety scheme, but I have heard from them that the circumstances in which they can do that—basically, declaring a degree of financial distress—are difficult for them, and I understand that. I cannot be drawn on any events upcoming; all I will say is that my hon. Friend’s suggestion has an awful lot of merit.

[Kim Johnson]

Will the Minister give way on that point.

[Alex Norris]

I will, but quickly, because I am down to seconds.

[Kim Johnson]

I want to recognise that so many lease-holders in my Liverpool Riverside constituency have been affected by the delay in remediation. Their lives are on hold because they cannot sell their flats and they cannot move forward. We need to look at what we can do to try to support those leaseholders.

[Alex Norris]

I totally agree. Those trapped are living in intolerable circumstances. As part of the update to the remediation acceleration plan, we will have more about what we can do to provide them with relief.

In conclusion, this has been a hugely important debate. We will have many more, and we will work our hardest to deliver justice for the community as quickly as we possibly can.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

15. What steps she is taking to support high streets. 

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

The Government are committed to rejuvenating high streets by empowering local communities. Through the £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods, we are providing flexible funding to support our most challenged communities. We are also tackling vacancy with high street rental auctions and legislating for a new community right to buy to support community ownership.

[Matthew Patrick]

Heswall in my Wirral West constituency is a brilliant place to live and deserves a thriving high street, but unfortunately for too many years now beloved shops have closed and decline has felt inevitable. The people of Heswall deserve better. I appreciate the Minister’s answer, but will he go further in explaining exactly how my constituents can take back control of their high street, so that it can thrive once again and deliver growth and opportunities for them?

[Alex Norris]

This Government understand the unique challenges that Heswall faces, including as a coastal community. That is why we are driving power and funding out of Westminster to ensure that no community is left behind. Just last week my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced £1.6 billion in funding for the Liverpool city region, including £100 million to upgrade the bus network, which is vital for connectivity to my hon. Friend’s community. I understand that those upgrades will begin in the Wirral next year, and I encourage Wirral council, as I do all local authorities, to take advantage of the new powers the Government have introduced to reoccupy the empty shops that are such a blight on our high streets.

[Noah Law]

I was elected to this place on the back of a pledge to revitalise the towns in my constituency. With the high street in St Austell in a sorry state, I am delighted to have been able to take the first steps towards revitalising it by ending the impasse at the site of the now derelict General Wolfe pub and moving my constituency office back into town at the other end of the street. However, the fact remains that the high street is on its knees, and many residents feel that our once great town could do much better. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that significant resources are available, beyond just the plan for neighbourhoods, to revitalise towns in constituencies like mine?

[Alex Norris]

I can say to my hon. Friend’s constituents that he is making good on that election commitment, because we have had this conversation on multiple occasions. Like all future funding, the Government will set out their long-term vision for local growth at the multi-year spending review; but in this year, the recently communicated UK shared prosperity fund announcement included more than £47 million for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly—a mixture of revenue and capital funding to ensure that places can get going and kick-start economic growth locally, bringing towns such as his into play.

[Michelle Welsh]

In my Sherwood Forest constituency, high streets are the beating heart of towns such as Ollerton and Hucknall. Ollerton is set to receive record funding from this Labour Government, and I thank the Minister for that. However, Hucknall was badly let down by the previous Government, with false promises of funding that quite simply did not exist. Will he meet me to discuss how this Labour Government can support the future of Hucknall, enabling it to be the glorious high street it once was?

[Alex Norris]

I fully share my hon. Friend’s anger about the unfunded commitments to Hucknall from the previous Government. I know how disappointing that has been locally. I am pleased we have been able to reprioritise some funding within extremely tight budgets to give the support that she talks about. As she knows, I live only two tram stops from Hucknall, and of course I would be keen to pop on the tram and see her—and if we meet in the Plough, I would be doubly keen. Either way, I will be making sure I get to see her.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

In 2017, I met parents of children with severe disabilities in my constituency. A lack of suitable toilets and changing facilities made it almost impossible for those families to enjoy a day out, and I have been inspired to campaign for more Changing Places toilets ever since. I recently opened a Changing Places toilet just off Leyburn High Street, which will improve accessibility across Wensleydale. Will the Minister join me in thanking everyone involved and commit to supporting more Changing Places toilets across the country, so that families can have both the opportunity and the dignity that they deserve?

[Alex Norris]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for Changing Places toilets, which have their roots in Nottingham. Frankly, people will not be able to access the amenities on their high streets if they do not feel they can leave their home without those facilities. I share his enthusiasm and commend him and his community. He sells himself slightly short, however, because I recall that when he was a Minister in this Department, he changed the rules and building regulations to make it easier to develop such toilets, and as Chancellor he made funding available for more as well. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise that and to praise him and the community of Wensleydale.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Houses in multiple occupation throughout Broxbourne—on our high streets in particular—are causing my constituents lots of issues. What will the Minister do to review the powers that my local councils of East Herts and Broxbourne have to stop HMOs where we do not want them?

[Alex Norris]

This is a really important question. The future mix of our high streets will undoubtably include, yes, traditional retail but also leisure and accommodation. That footfall can be a good thing, but if this is not well planned or well organised, and if communities are not brought along, it will not succeed. I am conscious that we have the Planning and Infrastructure Bill proceedings ahead of us today, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity to make that case to the Minister for Housing and Planning.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

In 2025-26, Surrey Heath businesses will contribute more than £30 million in business rates to Surrey borough council, but because of central Government tariffing, only 2.5% of those business rates will be retained locally. There is a reasonable expectation that locally raised taxes should remain local, so with local government reorganisation on its way, could the Secretary of State and the Front Bench team reassure Surrey Heath businesses that they might have a chance of retaining more of those business rates that should be invested back into our high streets?

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the changes we have made to ensure that there are discounts on business rates for certain businesses this year, with further commitments to come at the Budget. He makes the right point. Of course I cannot announce that outside the Budget, but we will consider those points carefully.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Our high streets and small businesses have been hammered by this Government, with big increases in the cost of business rates and national insurance contributions. Can the Minister tell the House what measures he and the team have put forward to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help our small businesses and high streets in the spending review?

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman offers me two opportunities there. First, we talk about challenges on the high street, but I remind the House of the more than a decade of starved demand because the economic policies of the Conservatives and all the impacts that had, followed by—[Interruption.] The stag do on the Opposition Front Bench are making their rattle as usual, but they were all present during that disastrous fiscal event that led to the increased costs that we are still coping with now. The second temptation the hon. Gentleman gives me is the opportunity to resign by leaking details of the spending review here first. Sadly, I will give no succour there.

[Mr Speaker]

Every high street needs a Chorley market. That is the answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

7. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of UK Government regeneration funding on towns in Scotland.

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

The Government’s defining mission is delivering economic growth and driving up living standards. That is why we are investing up to £200 million across 10 Scottish towns over 10 years to support regeneration, tackle inequalities and unleash their full potential. That will empower local communities, improve public services and create new opportunities. That is, of course, alongside the shared prosperity fund, which is investing £4.4 million in Fife this year.

[Melanie Ward]

Many times I have raised with the Minister, as well as with Business and Treasury Ministers, the need for regeneration funding for Kirkcaldy High Street. The brilliant people of our town deserve a modern town centre that makes the most of our incredible seafront and all it has to offer. Ahead of the spending review this week, can the Minister assure me that my message has been heard? Will he also join me in congratulating Davy Russell, Labour’s newest MSP and a strong campaigner for his high street? The people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse have chosen well.

[Alex Norris]

I can assure the hon. Lady, her constituents and the House that I do not think a week has gone by without her pushing me on Kirkcaldy town centre. She knows that I cannot run ahead of any multi-year spending review that may be upon us soon, but the point she made, and always makes to me, is a good one. I of course associate myself with her comments about Davy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Just answer the Scotland bit please, Minister.

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I talk with my counterparts in all the devolved Governments, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I will continue to do so. The shared prosperity fund is a sign of our commitment in that direction. We will, I am sure, see future plans shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Residents in Wellington, in Castlemoat Place in Taunton and in Agar Grove—homebuyers—are just some of a sample who have come to me, raising the scandal of house builders not properly finishing the buildings they have created, leaving them unsafe. What steps will the Minister take to bring forward measures to ensure that house builders repair and make safe their properties urgently, without people having to wait years?

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

I am grateful for that question, which raises something mirrored in many parts of this country. The duty to make sure that homes are safe is the responsibility of builders and owners. Where they fall short, there are legal powers for the local authority and for the fire and rescue service to compel them to change. As with all hon. and right hon. colleagues across the House, I would be happy to help, if I can, with any specific examples that the hon. Gentleman has.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

T7. There is no doubt about it; we face a climate emergency. What plans do the Government have to increase funding for the fire service to meet the increase and projected increases in wildfire and flooding incidents? If funding is to be increased, what will that mean for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service?

[Alex Norris]

As my hon. Friend rightly identifies, fire is a devolved matter. In England, stand-alone fire and rescue authorities will see an increase in core spending power of nearly £70 million in 2025-26. Those fire and rescue authorities are required to plan for foreseeable risks in their area, including wildfire and flooding, and to decide where to direct resources. On co-operation, I assure him, as I did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), that I am talking to my counterparts in the devolved Government to make sure that we are tackling common problems and sharing that insight.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T4. Oxton in my constituency has a newly refurbished community shop, and it exists thanks to the hard work of local volunteers. The Plunkett impact report highlights how community-owned shops are at the centre of the local economy. What are the Government doing to support the ownership of community shops?

[Alex Norris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to talk about community ownership of those locally loved assets. We know such places endure during difficult times; they provide good employment for local people and they normally employ a more diverse workforce base. We were pleased in the previous round to get money out to a number of schemes through the community ownership fund. We will legislate for an improved community right to buy, too. We are very much aligned in this space on the exceptional importance of community ownership.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

T9. I thank the Minister for his previous response, and I am glad to see that Cornwall’s socioeconomic challenges are reflected in the fact that 11 mission priority neighbourhoods have been identified in mid-Cornwall alone. We have talked about funding for mission critical neighbourhoods, but what steps are being taken to ensure that those mission priority neighbourhoods—deprived areas that fall just short of that mission critical definition—get adequate investment, too?

[Alex Norris]

In addition to my previous answer, my hon. Friend will have heard me talk about the importance of targeting resource at deprivation and need. I think that is the right approach to funding. It also goes a bit beyond funding, to power, which all communities can benefit from. Whether it is high street rental auctions, an enhanced community right to buy, local planning processes or local communities taking those opportunities to shape place, local authorities are important in that conversation. I know my hon. Friend is pushing his in that regard.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

T5. It has been estimated, and reported, that billions-worth of unspent community infrastructure levy may be available at local authority level for investment in critical infrastructure. Will the Minister ensure that the money is invested in roads and drainage, so it can deliver the improvements that our residents deserve?

Leasehold Reform

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this debate, on the case that she made and on the passion with which she spoke. This degree of turnout is uncommon for a half-hour debate, which shows the strength of feeling on this matter across the UK. Anybody writing legal letters to my hon. Friend with the idea that it might stop her using her platform to advocate for her constituents is likely to be deeply disappointed. Nevertheless, the debate has reinforced the case for major reform of the leasehold system. My hon. Friend highlighted the broad range of issues faced by leaseholders every day. We are committed as a Government to honouring the commitments made in our manifesto and to doing what is necessary to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end.

I will cover the legislation as it is, how we are going to commence those provisions, legislation that we committed to in the King’s Speech and, hopefully, some other elements at the end. We heard from my hon. Friend and other colleagues that there are unfair and unreasonable practices that require urgent relief. As my hon. Friend said, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, with the cross-party support that it garnered, provides scope for some of that relief. In November, the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), made a statement on the next steps for leasehold and commonhold reform that set out our intended sequencing for bringing those provisions of the Act into force, including an extensive programme of secondary legislation and consultation.

The parts of the Act that can be implemented quickly have been implemented. A number of provisions relating to rent charge arrears, building safety legal costs and the work of professional insolvency practitioners came into force in July 2024. In October, we commenced further building safety measures. In January, we commenced provisions to remove the two-year qualifying rule in relation to enfranchisement and leasehold extensions. In March, we switched on the right-to-manage provisions, which allow for expanding access, reforming costs and voting rights. Some things in the Act require secondary legislation, and we have been able to turn them on.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I welcome the early pace that the Government have shown on this, but given the urgency of the issues that the leasehold scandal is causing for my constituents and those of many hon. Members, does the Minister agree that we need to bring forward further, more substantive solutions at pace, including answers for existing leaseholders, to ensure that we are doing justice to the urgency of this moment?

[Alex Norris]

I do. I appreciate that there is frustration about consultation, but some of the challenges within the Act show why it is important that we get this right, and that we have a process that delivers the relief that people are so desperately waiting for. One such consultation that has now concluded is around insurance commissions, which relates to service charges. We are consulting on how to replace that with a fairer and more transparent permitted insurance fee.

This year, we will also start the consultation on relevant measures related to service charges and litigation costs more generally. On new consumer protection provisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) mentioned, for the up to 1.75 million homes on private and mixed-tenure housing estates that are subject to estate charges, we will bring the measures into force as soon as possible once we have the correct model.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the interest that he has shown in the issues we have in Stockton North at Queensgate, Willow Sage Court and Wynyard. I am pleased to provide the update to the Minister that, following my intervention, in Queensgate we now have 98% of the roads completed. Does he agree that the issue here is a lack of consumer choice? There is a market failure; in local areas such as Stockton, people who want to buy a house have very limited opportunity to do so without entering into one of these agreements.

[Alex Norris]

I commend my hon. Friend for his work there; it will be of great succour to a number of his constituents. However, he is right, because this is a confluence a failure to build enough houses and a system that has been left to govern itself and act in the ways that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth set out, leaving people with no choice but to enter into arrangements that lead to them having to live with these long-term consequences. That is why we must build more houses and address those behaviours.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that part of ensuring that we can take more control and offer more choice to residents is allowing residents to take greater control for themselves and, in the process, ensure better value for the services that they need on their estates?

[Alex Norris]

I absolutely agree, and I will turn to that in a second.

We will also be consulting on the valuation rates used to calculate the cost of enfranchisement premiums, and would welcome hon. and right hon. Members’ views on that. However, there are some deficiencies in the Act that need to be rectified in primary legislation, so we do need to legislate. That gives us the opportunity to bring forward, in line with what hon. Members have said, a new era of commonhold being the default tenure for new flats.

That is why we committed in the King’s Speech to a leasehold and commonhold reform Bill. It is part of our commitment to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. We have committed to publishing draft legislation on this in the second half of the year. It will make commonhold the default, and it began with the publication of the White Paper in March. Alongside that, in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth about the 5 million leaseholders, we want to make the conversion process easier. Once commonhold comes back into public prominence as a model, I think it will be more popular, but we want it to be easier as well.

We want to reform the existing system by legislating to tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rents, as was mentioned, to remove the disproportionate and draconian threat of forfeiture, to act to protect leasehold from poor service from managing agents, as many have said, and to enact the remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement and the right to manage. We will address private estate management in that.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his work for my constituents. I am sure that he will sympathise with the latest victim to have been in touch with me. He said that with an unsellable and unmortgageable flat, due to the charges that the Minister has mentioned, he is now on the verge of bankruptcy. Does the Minister agree that real change for leaseholders is now beyond urgent, and can he assure us that this year, residents will see not only legislation but real change?

[Alex Norris]

I absolutely can. My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for buildings in Southampton. We are meeting later to discuss one of them. I assure him, and those residents, that we know that they need change and relief now. That is why we have made the changes that we have been able to make so far. We want to get the changes right so that when the relief comes, it sticks, does not get mired and has the right impact. However, we appreciate the urgency with which my hon. Friend speaks.

Several hon. Members have mentioned service charges and managing agents. Service charges have become a particular pinch point, highlighted by the cost of living pressures in recent years. The LAFRA gives us measures to increase transparency and to remove barriers that prevent leaseholders from challenging them, including more standardised information. However, this year, we will consult on the Act’s provisions on service charges and litigation costs so that we can bring them into force as quickly as possible.

We will also consult on reforms to the section 20 major works procedure, which landlords must follow when leaseholders receive big bills for large works, as has been mentioned in the debate. There is much more to do in that area.

On the subject of managing agents, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth that we have heard her call about minimum standards.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

My constituents have been defrauded by Initiative Property Management, are suffering at the hands of Scanlans Limited, and have had to deal with the Residential Management Group, representatives of which I am meeting later today. I welcome this Labour Government’s action to hold companies such as those accountable, to challenge unfair charges and hidden fees, and to end leasehold. What is the Government’s message to rogue management companies? I ask so that when I meet the Residential Management Group, I can convey the will of the Government.

[Alex Norris]

I am keen to say clearly from the Front Bench that we will legislate in this area to close the dark corners that unscrupulous managing agents use to maximise profits. However, they do not have to wait for that in order to do the right thing. They have a duty to residents. There are many great examples of managing agents and landlords doing the right things by their residents. That is good for them, their building and the individuals who live there. They can do that today. I know that my hon. Friend will continue his work until they do so.

That brings me to an important point that was raised both by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth when she opened the debate, about the regulation of managing agents. They play an important role, particularly in multi-occupancy buildings, and that role is likely to increase in importance as commonhold becomes the default tenure. Many provide a good service, but there are too many examples like those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East. I know that all hon. Members here could tell me about similar examples. In 2018, the previous Government committed to regulating the sector. The report came back from Lord Best and they did not respond to it. We are looking at it closely and we will set out our position in due course. However, we have said that as a minimum, we will include mandatory professional qualifications for managing agents, to ensure that they have the skills that they need to carry out their role to a high standard.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth mentioned building safety and fire, which are part of my brief. As a Government, we understand that as part of our remediation acceleration plan, we need to give clarity about what a remediated standard is. I have talked to insurers about it, including about what they are asking for. The cladding safety scandal is being addressed through remediation. That cannot lead to a half a dozen other issues for leaseholders. We are pushing industry in that area, but we have been asked for certainty and we will deliver it.

There has been a lot to consider in this debate, and it could easily go on for another hour, which I think would be important. However, I know that colleagues will not let the matter lie. The subject is frequently on Parliament’s agenda, and rightly so. There are people living under intolerable strain. We are committed, as a Government, to giving them relief as quickly as possible, and in a way that sticks. I will be working on it with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth and colleagues over the coming weeks and months.

Question put and agreed to.

Pubs and Community Funding

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for securing this important debate and for that kind invitation, which I will return to. Usually, at 10.17 pm, if there is a difficult question about pubs, it is whether you can squeeze in one or two more—normally the latter—but today colleagues have asked other, more important questions, which I look forward to addressing. The hon. Lady’s speech also felt a little like a tour of Reigate, which I really enjoyed. There are clearly some excellent pubs there, so I very much look forward to visiting.

As the hon. Lady says, there is a long-term trend of communities losing important local assets that foster community cohesion. That has a knock-on impact on people’s satisfaction with the place they live in, and the strength of local communities. One of the defining features of this Parliament will likely be how well the Government and Parliament address that. We have to give communities agency over a place, and address the sense of decline that feeds that anger and loss. We recognise that there are good opportunities for communities to take over these assets and operate them successfully for the community. That allows people to continue to benefit from the places that matter most to them, and empowers communities to shape their area. What better example could there be of a community facility than a pub? As the hon. Lady says, pubs are at the heart of our communities, and serve as crucial community assets. They support local economies and provide spaces for community gatherings, and the best pubs offer essential services, as we have heard, such as support for vulnerable individuals. They foster a sense of community pride and help us tackle loneliness and social isolation.

It was clear from the hon. Member’s contribution how passionate she is about supporting local pubs and the industry more generally. As we admirably heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), the best pubs competition is a great way of recognising the importance of these assets—in Surrey in the hon. Lady’s case, and in Newcastle-under-Lyme in my hon. Friend’s case. Clearly, the hon. Lady’s constituents valued the competition, too. Judging from what she said, it is not a surprise that the Garibaldi was successful, and I congratulate the pub.

[Adam Jogee]

As and when the good people of Newcastle-under-Lyme confirm the best pub of 2025, will the Minister come and have a pint? I will buy the first round.

[Alex Norris]

I would not want the inducement to be seen as my reason for saying yes, although it is an attractive part of the offer. Of course, I will happily come. [Interruption.] I owe the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a trip to Newtownards, because on the day of the Retail NI high street awards, I awarded the win to Ballymena rather than Newtownards, and have felt a sense of loss ever since. I will also come and join him.

[Adam Jogee]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his indulgence in giving way. It would not be a free pint, because I have a long list of things that I want him to help me get sorted for the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme.

[Alex Norris]

I have absolutely no doubt about that; nor do I doubt that my hon. Friend will take on those problems with vigour.

The hon. Member for Reigate talked about the community ownership fund. I acknowledge the important work that it has done over our time in government and before. As she says, since 2021, it has awarded a total of over £135 million to 409 projects across the UK. In total, the fund has supported 52 local pubs with £13.7 million of funding. Those pubs will bring significant benefits to their communities. Those numbers are in the aggregate, but each pub is a community asset retained, adds huge value, and brings much joy.

Let me highlight a couple of pubs that we awarded funding to in the December round. We awarded £300,000 to the Rectory in Chesterfield. The funding will secure the future of that vital community pub and social hub. It will also be used to create a wellness space and provide a home for a local community radio station—what a great way to spend public money. Similarly, the Swan community project in Tonbridge was awarded £300,000 in December to support the purchase of the Swan pub and for start-up and renovation costs. That pub has now been purchased, and will serve as a community hub that reduces isolation and improves social cohesion and wellbeing in the rural community. It will also provide work experience opportunities to those in the community. That is a great example of how quite a small amount of public money, in the grand scheme of things, can have a huge social benefit.

I know from colleagues that there is considerable interest—I get written questions and correspondence on this each week—in what might come next. Colleagues will know that we have a multi-year spending review inbound, so there is a limit to what I can say, but there will be further announcements relating to communities this year, including on the community ownership of assets. However, there are things that people can use at the moment. I encourage any community groups seeking funding to preserve their assets, and to continue to use the guidance and tools available from the community ownership fund development support provider on the MyCommunity site. Those tools are rooted in the experiences of lots of community assets. Some of those community assets are state-funded; some have been able to secure funding from elsewhere. There is a lot to learn from that, and I encourage community groups to do so.

I would be very interested in meeting the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) to talk about the Garibaldi—perhaps in the Garibaldi, or perhaps, in the interests of business, somewhere else first, although I would be very happy to retire to the Garibaldi afterwards—and what support the Department can give. There is another important community intervention that our Government have introduced: the £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods. It will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade to 75 communities across the UK, to kick-start local growth and drive up living standards. The Government have a commitment to working in partnership with residents, business, grassroots campaigners and local authorities to deliver the priorities of local people and drive renewal. As I have said multiple times from the Dispatch Box, we want less of us and more of local communities, because they are the experts.

There are already lots of pre-approved interventions in the prospectus that areas can take forward to support their local pubs. There is support for developing, restoring or refurbishing local cultural and heritage assets and sites, such as pubs, including for new uses by the community, as well as grants for the development, promotion and upkeep of local tourist attractions. We heard from the hon. Lady a couple of examples of historical pubs in her community. That is the sort of thing that the plan for neighbourhoods money can be spent on. There is also, more broadly, the opportunity to spend funding on wraparound support for local businesses. That could be used to help upgrade infrastructure to make energy savings—the hon. Lady talked about the challenge of overheads. Lots of things in the plan for neighbourhoods could help.

More broadly, for communities that are not in the plan, we have the community right to buy and high street rental auctions. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) talked about the community right to buy. He seemed particularly excited about it, and we fought hard for it to be part of the Labour party manifesto at the last general election. Through the English devolution Bill, we will introduce that strong new right to buy for valued community assets such as empty shops, pubs, and community spaces. This will empower local people to bring community spaces back into community ownership, and end the blight of empty premises.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for securing this debate, and I join her and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) in listing a couple of great community pubs. In Hemel Hempstead, they include the best newcomer pub of the year, the Anchor in Bourne End, and 2025 pub of the year, the Three Blackbirds, which is always good for a Labour pub quiz—we like that. I have had the pleasure of holding surgeries at The Windmill in Chipperfield, without a pint in hand, I promise. The Green Dragon in Flauden, which I mentioned in my maiden speech, is a wonderful pub.

I wanted to focus on the point that the Minister made about empty shops, because there is a great initiative in Hemel Hempstead, and a great place called the Hop Tap, which has opened up in what was our market square. Times have moved on, and that space is in some ways empty, but The Hop Tap has moved in at short notice and created a wonderful craft beer place. It is now looking to sell beer online, and from its store, for people to take away. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an innovative way to ensure that, in the 21st century, we can have pubs that provide what the community needs, and that help tackle the issue of empty shops?

[Alex Norris]

That is a great use. The high street is going to change, and the degree to which we can foment such change will be a defining feature of this Parliament. That change will not be a restoration of how things were 20 or 30 years ago; it will be about reimagining the space. Leisure will be a particularly good use of the space. They could be used by microbreweries, such as—I am going to do it now—the Bulls Well in Bulwell, just down the road from my constituency office. I vowed I wouldn’t, but I couldn’t resist. There will be other places used for leisure purposes more generally. I am very enthusiastic about boutique bingo; that can bring life to the high street as well.

Now for a perfect segue: there is a real opportunity for right hon. and hon. colleagues here, or those watching online or reading this later, in high street rental auctions. They are a really good way of doing exactly what hon. Members suggest. We need new powers for local authorities to require landlords to rent out persistently vacant commercial units. The types of entities that we are talking about could fill those spaces, get their first toe on to the ladder, and develop their businesses.

[Adam Jogee]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you will be able to give us a flavour of the pubs in Romsey and Southampton North. We feel sure that that would add to the debate this evening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, and it would of course be remiss of me not to mention the Grey Hound in Broughton, which was the Romsey and Southampton North pub of the year 2025.

[Alex Norris]

That’s the spirit, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Before I finish, colleagues have asked about support to reduce overheads, and it is worth noting that nearly half of pubs have a rateable value of under £15,000, which takes them out of rates entirely. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) asked for a confirmation of rates, but I am afraid I cannot run ahead of the Chancellor, who will set the rates for 2026-27 at the forthcoming Budget in the autumn. For this year, there is a 40% relief, which I know is very welcome indeed.

To conclude, we have seen the strength of feeling from colleagues this evening, and also had a wonderful insight into the variety of ways in which pubs touch our communities. There is a common theme, which is the huge social value in people from a community, who know their community, coming together to tackle challenges and add to that community. We should want as much of that as we can foster, and the Government are keen to support that.

Question put and agreed to.

Rebalancing Regional Economies

Alex Norris Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. It was a pleasure to hear the outstanding contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae). I am grateful to him for securing the debate, and I am grateful to my colleagues who have come and found a way to contribute to it as well. This is a very important debate. The frustration over the imbalances both between and within regions is felt locally, whether it is in Teesside or Cornwall or anywhere in between, so it is right that colleagues are interested in this.

I have a whole argument to set out, but instinctively I will start with something I have said for a number of years, both when I shadowed this brief in opposition and throughout my time in government—something, most importantly, that the Prime Minister has said on multiple occasions: we see the fundamental transfer of power and resources from this place to local communities as a huge priority for this Government. We do that because we believe it is right that people should have a stronger say over their future, be it their economic future, their social future or the future of the fabric of their community, but we also strongly believe that that is what delivers.

It is right that the No. 1 mission for this Government is growth, but if we are to get that, the heart of our growth mission must be making sure that everybody has good opportunities, and that prosperity is spread across the UK. This is hard to say, especially as a Minister, but also from Westminster itself: it is an inside job. When I became the Minister for local growth, a job I loved doing, I did not walk through a sheep dip that gave me omniscience over Lancashire, Teesside, the west Midlands or Halesowen. The experts are my hon. Friends, but more importantly they are their constituents. My role—and our job as a Government—is to get those resources and powers out to them, so that they can change their communities and shape their economic futures. That is an important and huge goal.

It is very hard not to get into a conversation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) says, about either north or south, urban or rural and city or town, and that is a feature of this debate. But certainly when it comes to growth across those areas outside London and the south-east that have had the hardest time over the past few decades, I do not see these things as either/or’s. I think they interlock.

[Afzal Khan]

This is an important debate. In Manchester, a shocking 11 children in a class of 30 are living in poverty, which we know impacts their development, experiences, education and mental health. We must ensure that the economy works for the people we serve, so does the Minister agree that tackling child poverty must be central to our plans for regional rebalancing, especially in areas such as Manchester Rusholme?

[Alex Norris]

I agree that child poverty is particularly cruel. It is cruel because of the hardship that those children grow up in, but it is also cruel because their potential is snuffed out before they have even had a chance, and we should want everybody to have a chance to play their role in their community. That speaks to the very important point that even within communities that are thriving, there are still some of those neighbourhoods. This is a conversation about towns, but it is also a conversation about neighbourhoods. The very poorest neighbourhoods exist in all parts of the country, and we should have a real neighbourhoods focus for how we tackle that.

As I said, I think that these things interlock. I make no apology for believing that there is an importance in ensuring that our cities thrive. If our largest 11 underperforming cities got to the national average, that would be worth £20.5 billion; to the Exchequer, it would be £63 billion of additional output. That is a huge prize. I am thinking about Belfast and the incredible success story that is going on there in banking and finance, in the creative industries and in tech generally. These are incredible opportunities, which have the potential to change that community and change lives.

However, it is right that colleagues here, such as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), should ask, “But what does that mean for Newtownards? What does that mean for Coleraine? What does that mean for Ballymena?” Those conversations are very much in the spirit that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen led us off in. We will as a Government—this has been part of the debate already today—look to back those projects that have a potentially transformative impact. Whether that involves the Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge corridor or unlocking the growth potential of our cities, we are going to do those things. We think that that should be at the core of our industrial strategy. I am talking about backing places with potential for growth, and growth with a degree of speed as well. There is the clustering that is going on. I am thinking about Liverpool and Manchester and some of the technology clustering. We are going to back those things. We think that is the right thing to do. But I want to give colleagues a real assurance that our approach has a lot more than that, too. As I have said, it is about power and it is about resources.

With regard to the power piece, I am very proud of our devolution agenda. As a Government, we have built on what the previous Government did. They did good things in establishing the mayoralties that they did. We want that to go wider and deeper, which I will talk about in a second. In recent months, I have been working very closely with our mayors on the development of local growth plans, so that—again, in the spirit of what my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen says—rather than Ministers sitting in Whitehall with a map and working out where they think there might be some potential, we are saying to the leaders of those communities, “Get together with your community. Tell us where your economic future is. Tell us what the hurdles are to realising that economic future. Tell us what resources you need to deliver that economic future. We will agree those plans with you and we will back you. We will give you the power to do that. You can use tools, such as investment zones or freeports, but we want you to say what it takes.”

I am very pleased to say that as we get to the spending review this year, we will see those plans come out. Whether we are talking about the Liverpool city region, the east midlands—my area—the Greater Manchester combined authority, the west midlands or elsewhere, people will see emerging very exciting plans that will be about a new vision, a new understanding of where this country’s potential and opportunities are, because suddenly they will be popping up all over the country. I am really excited about that, but we need more people to be part of the settlement.

The devolution steps taken by previous Governments were good ones, but it could go much further, so we have made a commitment to a deeper devolution settlement—more powers across housing, planning, transport, energy, skills, employment support and more, so that locally those tools are there to shape place and to shape the economic future. I am delighted to say that Lancashire is soon to be part of this. We want more people to be in on that settlement because we think it delivers for their communities, so it is great that the Lancashire combined county authority is up and running. Of course, there are six areas in the devolution priority programme. That means that when those priorities are delivered and over the line, in addition to the devolution we have already, the proportion of England covered by devolution will rise to 77%, or just over 44 million people, by next May.

[Perran Moon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Norris]

I will shortly. That will cover the entirety of the north, which may well be the point that my hon. Friend wants to make.

[Perran Moon]

I wholeheartedly agree with the principle of devolving powers out of this place and into regions, but does the Minister agree that in certain parts of the country, namely Cornwall, it will be very difficult for the model that is designed within the English devolution Bill to apply? Does he agree that we need flexibility and a nuanced approach to those areas that are desperate for devolution but will not and cannot sign up to the model that is currently Government strategy?

[Alex Norris]

I recognise that Cornwall is different. That point is obviously established in multinational architecture as well. There is no doubt that there are differences in Cornwall. I know that my hon. Friend and his Cornish colleagues are making that case very strongly to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, and I am hearing that case as well. We know that that will continue. We need to have a programme that fits, and my hon. Friend will understand our need for coherence, too, but I appreciate the spirit in which he makes his point. I know there are differences in Cornwall, and those conversations will continue.

[Luke Myer]

Do the Government accept the subsidiarity principle wherein powers should not just sit at the mayoral level, but should be as close to the community as possible? That would empower our local authorities and communities themselves, rather than just creating structures that sit above communities and are distant from them.

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend, with characteristic vigour, takes me to the next part of my argument. I do not see the finished devolution product being a shift of power from Whitehall and Westminster to a regional or sub-regional body that is far away from communities and the local authority. I think that transfer is an unalloyed good, but I do not think it is the whole job.

That is why I was so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen was the one who opened the debate. Our plan for neighbourhoods is a step in that direction—we are saying that we want money and power to be held at a neighbourhood level, to shape place. We think that is the second part of devolution. The first part probably gets the most public attention—creating new mayors and new structures creates a lot of interest. For me, the magic is in that next stage, which is where communities really take control for themselves—and of their future.

That is not just rhetoric from me; we have put our money where our mouths are. The £1.5 billion we have committed to the plan for neighbourhoods will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support for 75 areas over the next decade. It is hopefully a starting point. In April I had the pleasure of visiting two of the areas, Darwen and Rawtenstall, which are in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I was struck by the energy—my hon. Friend always has that characteristic energy, of course, but his former colleagues in local government had it too, as well as the neighbourhood board and all the folks who had come to play their role in that process. I was struck by how ambitious they were for their communities, and the plans they had. As I go around the UK talking to people, mentioning local growth and the plan for neighbourhoods, it is striking how they want to use the money to catalyse further investments in their communities.

[Andy MacNae]

This is all wonderful stuff, and obviously we are massively behind these plans, but does the Minister agree that in order to make the most of the plan for neighbourhoods, we must address the infrastructure constraints within the sub-regions—constraints that have traditionally held back our areas? In the case of Rawtenstall and many areas, it is the rail links. There is also the transport grid. There are so many aspects of this. We will only get the value for money out of our plan for neighbourhoods if we address the infrastructure around our areas, too.

[Alex Norris]

I agree with that. When I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency, I was struck by the fact that he is in a valley, and if anything is wrong with that road, everything is wrong with that road and everything grinds to a halt. Of course the plan cannot be seen in isolation.

I have only one minute left, and I want to cover the Green Book before I conclude. My hon. Friend made a very good case for updating the Green Book. As he said, a review is under way. That will ensure that the Green Book provides objective, transparent advice on public investment across the country, including outside of London and the south-east, meaning that investment in all regions gets a proper hearing and areas get proper backing for growth. I encourage colleagues to continue to talk to the Treasury, as I know they are doing, about what they want to see from a future Green Book to ensure that they are getting the investment they need in their communities.

There has been a lot of energy in this room; there is always a lot of energy in the room when we talk about local devolution and local leadership. We have huge untapped potential in this country, and what it takes to tap into that potential, and that desire for communities to take control of their future, is a Government who support the transfer of money and power from this place to them to allow them to shape place. I am really excited to be getting on with that job, and to be working with colleagues in doing so.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Local Housing Need Assessment Reform

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you for that clear direction, Mrs Hobhouse; it is very helpful.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate and on his leadership. He clearly articulated his concerns on the revised standard method for assessing local housing need. He set us off on a good course: this has been a very strategic debate, which is not always the case with debates about housing. I have a disclaimer that I and colleagues in the Department always read out at this point about our inability to comment on individual matters or individual local plans, but colleagues have not tempted us in that direction. That is very important, and it set the tone for an excellent debate. I will cover many of the points that the hon. Member and others made in the course of the conversation.

The debate has been relatively non-partisan. I think the shadow Secretary of State slightly missed the memo, but I like him as much as he likes me, and I know he does not mean it and that his instinct is always to work constructively. I have no doubt that he and his colleagues will want to do so. At this very minute, colleagues from all parties are upstairs discussing in great detail the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will provide us with a vehicle for many important changes. Clearly, there will be lots of debates to come on very important amendments.

Multiple members have said that we are in the middle of a really acute housing crisis. I get out of bed every day, as do my colleagues, because 160,000 children live in temporary accommodation. As mentioned by the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), that is the tip of the iceberg of the multiple millions who are under-housed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) said, their housing and under-housing has profound impacts on their opportunities and life chances. That has been in the spirit of this debate. We made that signature commitment at the election to build 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament exactly for those people, because they need decent housing to build decent lives and decent communities.

Home ownership is out of reach for too many. Too few homes have been built, and too few are genuinely affordable. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the bank of mum and dad—that ever-present and indeed growing feature that now seems inevitable for people of my generation or those who are perhaps are a bit younger, but was not a feature of my mother’s generation. That is such an important issue of social justice. We must build more homes, and they must be in places where people want to live and work. The planning system has to underpin that, but as the hon. Member for Horsham said, the history of that is chequered. Indeed, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said, we have all had our stake in that. I certainly approach this in the spirit of humility. We want to get this right.

I will now turn to the work of the previous Government. We must have a method that is clear and transparent. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) talked about what it looks like in detail. At least it is there in detail for people to say, “I don’t like this element of it. I think this is weighted wrongly”. It is clear, it is transparent, it is there, and it produces the numbers. That is the basis for plan-making. I do not want to make a political point out of this, because the right hon. Gentleman is proud of the previous Government’s record on housing, but we have had a little test of the alternative in the final year of the last Parliament, and there was a sense that targets were out the window. I do not think that was a very effective decision, and the impact on housing starts is a matter of public record.

I do not think we have heard much of an argument for not having a method at all, but without one, the situation tends towards stasis. That is why last December, following consultation, we implemented a revised method that is aligned with our ambition of a million and a half new homes over this Parliament. There is one point that I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Horsham about, although I appreciate that it may well be a separate debate: I do not think we can decouple the national target and the local target. If the local target does not meet the national target or the national target does not tally with the local target, there will be disconnect and frustration.

This target and this method point us towards 370,000 homes. The formula incorporates a baseline of local housing stock and is adjusted upwards to reflect affordability pressures. Areas where unaffordability is most acute see the largest adjustment. We think that supply is an issue here alongside demand—I disagree slightly with a couple of colleagues on that point. However, I think it is really important for those watching to hear this stated from the Front Bench: this method does not exist in a vacuum. It is the underpinning of the development of local plans, which have been and will be the cornerstone of our planning system. The plans take into account all the development needs of a local area, including affordable housing.

I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) about the challenges facing her local authority in ensuring that its plan holds, but the fact that it has that 30% target is a sign that local authorities can put on record the nature of housing that they want in their communities. Notwithstanding the point made by the hon. Member for St Ives, if it is an arm wrestle with developers, it has that guiding document at least to halt it, because we know that the alternative is a lack of planning that exposes communities. They make up the bedrock, and we want all communities to have one. York is always a prime example—I am overjoyed that York has got to that point after more than six decades. That community is better protected in terms of development, and it will also deliver more effective development. It is a win for all.

I cannot concede the point made by the hon. Member for Horsham that councillors do not know enough; I think that they do. There is a point about local authority resourcing and planning, and we made that commitment at the previous Budget. We want councillors to have the skills to feel empowered, but crucially, as the hon. Gentleman said, local communities also need to feel empowered. I cannot agree that housing and development is not an election issue; I think that it is. The 1.5 million homes target was very much a feature of what we said at the general election. I want to empower local authorities and people to have their say on plans, because they are a bedrock. If they want development that is sustainable, of the right type and in the right place, perhaps on brownfield sites, the local plan is the route to that. It means engaging with it in a way that goes beyond the questions of, “Should there be development? Is our development target too high?” We need to get to, “Where is it going to happen? What type does it need to be?” That is, I believe, the way to deliver the development that they want.

A number of colleagues, including the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), have mentioned local circumstances. Indeed, last week, he and I were talking about West Dorset in the context of having the right parking in the right places. Things like that are facilitators and enablers of place. The standard method is a starting point to inform the preparation of local plans. Once local need has been assessed, authorities can establish the number of new homes that are to be provided in the area. That takes into account evidence showing what land is available and any constraints on development—for example, those relating to national landscapes, areas at risk of flooding and other relevant matters.

That approach recognises that some areas—as, I think, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said—will not be able to deliver the figure provided by the standard method. If they can justify that fully in their local plan during examination by an independent inspector, they can make that case. However, of course, they must only adopt a plan that is legally compliant and sound. It must be consistent with national policy, supported by evidence, and we want the views of local people to be taken into account.

A point was also made about brownfield sites. We want local authorities to make sure that they maximise those sites, and I think local authorities want to do that too. We also want them to be sensible about where they review green-belt land. I think there are different types of land within the green belt. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire characterised it as a Trojan horse; that is not our intent. Who is best placed to make that assessment? It is, of course, the local authorities, by leaning into it. The right hon. Gentleman made an interesting point, as did the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, about whether it is a question of urban versus rural. I do not think that that is the case. Hon. Members will see in our approach to growth in city regions the importance of those regions to the economy; they are places where people want to live, or where people cannot currently access housing.

As the Minister for town centres, I can say that we are enthusiastic in the Department about communities taking control of their town centres, notwithstanding challenges about permitting development. In future, town centres will not be purely retail; the mix will be retail, leisure and, of course, there will also be a need for accommodation. That mix should be locally owned. In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Horsham mentioned new towns. It will not be a case of: is it urban, rural or new town? It is going to be everywhere; the mix will be a bit of everything. Similarly, it will involve big builders and SMEs. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton shares my enthusiasm for getting SMEs building. It is going to be the entire mix.

I am conscious of time, but I want to address the points made by the hon. Member for West Dorset and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about water and local housing. Of course, water is important. National policy is clear that housing must have water infrastructure. There are clear expectations that local authorities should work with each other and the infrastructure providers to ensure that housing has that infrastructure. I think that, in general, they are doing that and ensuring that the water supply is sustainable. The companies have a statutory duty to provide new water and sewerage connections. I appreciate that the subject needs to be seen in the round, but that goes back to the need to have an effective, comprehensive local plan, which local authorities can use as their guiding document. They can then say to the water companies, “We do not want you to look at 50 houses at a time; we want you to see it in the round.” That is the sort of leadership that we want.

There are larger issues that colleagues have raised frequently. I would be stretching the scope of this debate if I talked about the behaviour of those who manage water, but we could have a whole new debate on it. Of course, there is an independent review ongoing on the regulation of the water sector for the UK and Welsh Governments. I assure the hon. Member for Strangford, as I often do, that we are very active in talking to the Northern Ireland Executive on a variety of issues, particularly on building safety. I always talk to my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about their approaches.

On strategic planning, this is a chance to have a higher level but still localised view of the best sites, working and collaborating with local planning authorities. That is an exciting innovation. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) asked how that will butt up against local government reorganisation. Of course, those partners will be part of that, but there will still be a local planning authority so that people can submit their views on a local plan.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, the hon. Members for Chichester and for Horsham and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) talked about affordable and social housing. There can be no doubt about the commitment of this Government and the Deputy Prime Minister to social housing, genuinely affordable homes and homes for social rent. We have already put our money where our mouth is by committing £800 million in-year for the affordable homes programme, and a further £2 billion injection at the 2025 spring statement. Alongside that, there are new flexibilities for councils and housing associations within the AHP and in how they use right to buy.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I commend the Government on their work to change the local connection rules to ensure that veterans can access social housing. In our region, the local authority has come in off the back of that and given veterans the highest priority banding for social housing. Will the Minister take a moment to commend our local council for that reform, which comes off the back of the work that the Government are doing?

[Alex Norris]

That excellent innovation by the local authority reflects one of the needs that the public want to see met.

In my final minute, I want to address the point that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton made about the Building Safety Regulator. It is right that we have a regulatory framework in place; we have seen the consequence of not having one. It has to protect people but also enable building. There is a moral imperative to ensuring that people are safe in their homes, but also to ensuring that people have homes. The BSR is a relatively new regulator—it has only been in place for a couple of years—and obviously the Building Safety Act 2022 is a relatively new part of the scene.

We are working very closely with the BSR to ensure that its operational processes are as effective as possible. Where that is a challenge, we have made more money available. I speak with the industry about that in great detail, as I am sure the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton does, so he will know the conversations that we are having. I totally accept that we need to ensure that the BSR is working effectively, because it is a really important part of having a safe system.

I reiterate our determination to build the homes that the country needs. Through the standard method, we have the right tool to get to 1.5 million homes. In that context, local people will have the leadership they need to deliver what that looks like locally.

Parking Regulation

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate and for the spirit and intent with which they both spoke. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate.

I must say that I am generally not one for diary policing colleagues, and I always say to constituents that the number of people attending a debate does not always reflect the amount of feeling that exists about an issue. However, it is clear that both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have tapped into a real issue, and the range of colleagues present, of different political persuasions and from around the country, shows that. Something my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) said particularly stuck with me: I think that all colleagues have experienced, as I have myself, being contacted by frustrated, angry and upset constituents—good people, who go about their days doing the right thing, but end up battling a system that is not only seemingly unresponsive to their challenges, but is actually set up to challenge them and indeed to trip them up.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot spoke about the strength of feeling that exists about this issue, but they provided a purposeful and solution-focused approach to lead the debate, which has stood us in good stead. In the contributions that colleagues have made, they have clearly set out the “rap sheet” and the frustrations of their constituents, and I will respond to those points shortly. I hope that their constituents, and indeed constituents from around the country, can hear their voices in this debate; they have been very present.

I have a little more time in which to speak than colleagues did, so I will start by saying, as they perhaps would not have had time to do, that there is an intrinsic importance and value in private parking. Parking is important for our motorists and, as some colleagues alluded to, it is also important for the resilience of towns, cities and communities across the country. People want and need—and must be able—to use their cars to do their shopping, attend medical appointments, go to work and take their children to the activities they need to go to.

As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said, in many areas across the country, people are totally dependent on their cars and rely on the consistent and available provision of good-quality car parks. All our communities in our towns and our cities rely on having a mix of transport options, of which privately managed car parks are an essential element. That is how important and fundamental car parks are.

If we individualise some of the challenges that exist, such as a number being keyed wrongly here or an overstay by two minutes there, parking might be seen as a granular challenge, but actually it is a hugely significant issue for the vitality of our communities. Like other colleagues, I have heard from those who represent the private parking industry, who say that 99% of the time there is a quality interaction, but we have heard stories in this debate that show that is too often not the case—and too often for seemingly avoidable reasons.

I am grateful to hon. Members for setting out their cases. I am also grateful to those colleagues who highlighted that the issue is on the rise. We heard about the scale of it: as colleagues said, between 2012 and 2022 there was a near 500% increase in DVLA vehicle keeper data requests. Something must be done. As other colleagues said, a parking charge will be issued every two seconds during this debate. The system must be fair, and it must ensure that motorists can park without fear of an unfair charge.

I will speak a little about what we intend to do as a Government shortly, but colleagues have set out an important road map—if hon. Members will excuse a totally unintended pun—for different improvements that could be made to the system. First, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) mentioned the clarity of the rules. My hon. Friend raised an important point about his assessment of his own capacity to comply or otherwise with rules. By instinct, I want to follow the rules to their fullest—I definitely do not want to get fined—but they can be difficult and unclear, and they ought not to be. They ought to be something that anybody can comprehend and follow.

Similarly, my hon. Friends the Members for Derby South and for Shipley (Anna Dixon) talked about the importance of signage. It is important that that is not seen as a hurdle to clear—an invisible hurdle, something that people could have known if only they were 15 feet taller. There has to be fairness in ensuring that people know how to follow the rules.

The systems themselves also have to work, as my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said. Kimberley, in my constituency, is in a dip, so it is often very hard to use the app because there is no connectivity. The systems have to be ones that people can access and use.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) talked about proportionate responses, so that, if people do not follow the rules, the penalties are fair and relate to the transgression. He also made important points about what parking can do in a tourism context. Like him, the last thing I would want is for someone to come to my constituency—perhaps to enjoy Nottingham’s fabulous night-time economy—and for the one thing they remember to be, “Oh, but I got a parking ticket, didn’t I?”. Those things stick, so the system has to be fair and transparent; if it is not, there is a knock-on impact.

My hon. Friends the Members for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) and for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) talked about an appeal system. This is fundamental. People must be able to exercise their right to a fair hearing. People must also have confidence in the appeal system. Otherwise, they will not use it, and the virtuous feedback loop that is created when the appeal system demonstrates to operators areas where there might be challenges—why are they getting a lot of appeals on a specific car park? Is there a signage or technology issue?—gets lost.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) mentioned access to the DVLA database. The database is accessible where there is reasonable cause, which underpins the system. I say to her and other colleagues who expressed concerns that there can be consequences for operators who misuse the system.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about Northern Ireland. This is a devolved matter, but I reiterate a commitment I have given to him in relation to a number of other issues, which he very kindly mentioned: I talk to my counterparts in the Northern Ireland Executive frequently about a variety of issues, and I am always keen that we learn from each other. There are sometimes good reasons for doing things differently, but we must not create a lack of clarity by doing wildly different things. It is always interesting to hear what they are doing, and I am always keen to borrow the best of what is going on across the UK.

Like a number of other colleagues, the hon. Gentleman also mentioned a local example from his constituency of the importance of political pressure in getting the right thing to happen. I think particularly of the five-minute cap issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and the constituent who was fined £2,000. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington mentioned the significant fine—a matter of public record—given to one of her constituents. Reading ahead to where I am going here, colleagues will know that pressure by hon. Members meant that that system was changed under the voluntary code of practice. That is a good thing, but that is not how a system ought to work.

Similarly, in my community we had a number of complaints about the same car park. A member of staff from my office went and saw that one of the cameras had been knocked, so they were getting duff data. We were able to get that changed. That may have to happen sometimes, but that is not a system that is working. It should not rely on politicians intervening in individual cases to change policy. We can and will do much better.

I want to reiterate—or iterate and then reiterate, perhaps—to colleagues our commitment as a Government on this issue. I hope colleagues have seen my strength of feeling on this issue. We are committed to taking action to protect motorists and drive up standards in the private parking industry. We have a helpful bit of support from previous Parliaments in that. I think that, other than the hon. Member for Strangford, only you and I, Mr Efford, will remember the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which started as a private Member’s Bill tabled by Greg Knight. That was a good use of the private Member’s Bill process.

The 2019 Act places a duty on the Government to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the operation and management of private parking facilities. However, doing so was an exercise that confuddled four previous Prime Ministers and five Secretaries of State—one of them twice—not to mention goodness knows how many Ministers. The process was too slow and too chaotic. As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), said, the Government tried in 2022 but then had to withdraw the code of practice. I give the clear commitment from this Dispatch Box that as a Government we will deliver.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

What timeframe is the Department working to? I am not the only Member present who has asked that question, and it would be helpful to get confirmation from the Minister.

[Alex Norris]

I suspect that my reply to the hon. Lady will be the same as I have set out previously to a number of Members, either via written question or in correspondence. The timeframe is coming in due course. I will talk a little more about that, because we are having an important debate. We want to get this right, and I am aware of the potted and challenging history in this space. We want to get it right this time, and we are committed to delivering a code that recognises the importance of this issue to motorists and gets it right for them.

The Department meets regularly with the AA, the RAC and other consumer groups, which have done such important work in this area, to ensure that the code we publish will act in the best interests of motorists and addresses their concerns. As would be expected, we have talked to the accredited trade associations—the British Parking Association and the Internation Parking Community—to ensure that we do not inadvertently make life harder for motorists along the way. I assure Members that we will engage with the issues that have been raised with the Department as we work towards publishing the code.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

We have talked about the impact of parking practices on particular towns, and I am concerned about some of the towns in the Tyne valley, where a lot of effort is being made to preserve the local environment and clean air, and to drive down car use and promote the use of public transport. Northern Rail has just brought in paid parking at Stocksfield train station, which has dramatically impacted the local community and caused a lot of concerns about future on-street parking in residential areas. It would be good to know that the Government are considering those kinds of moves from train companies, which will ultimately have a damaging effect on local communities.

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend’s intervention shows that there needs to be, at the heart of this Government’s work, stronger local say about the full transport balance. The goals that he talks about are those of many of his constituents, who are the experts in ensuring the right balance. Whether that is in regard to bus services or planning, as raised by the shadow Minister, we want to ensure that the tools are in the hands of local communities, so that they can lean in and plan at a community level the amenities and assets that they need collectively.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister assure us that he will go back and look at the national planning policy framework, to ensure that local development plans include enough spaces? I regularly visit developments in my constituency, and every one needs more parking.

[Alex Norris]

I am slightly loath to start a speech on the national planning policy framework—not least because I think you will smite me down, Mr Efford—but I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s points. We have of course consulted on the NPPF, and have published our changes as a result of the consultation.

On the code of practice, our goal is to find a proper balance to ensure that parking charges and debt recovery fees are fair and proportionate, while providing an effective deterrent against the small number of people who deliberately do not comply. We intend to publish a consultation shortly—and I do mean shortly—to outline where the Government are and give everybody a chance to share their views. I encourage colleagues from across the House to take part—as always, I am available to meet any and all to hear their views—but I cannot say strongly enough that it is coming shortly.

[Martin Wrigley]

I hear stories of places like Cornwall council being so strapped for money that they are considering sub-letting all their parking spaces to independent private parking companies, which will run them for nothing other than the fines they will take from tourists visiting Cornwall and residents. Does the Minister agree that this issue is urgent? I do not hear urgency in his timescales. I repeat the request for a specific timescale for introducing a code of conduct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I appreciate that this is an urgent issue—that was a feature of all Members’ contributions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me when I say “shortly”. At the risk of getting into a debate about what is short and what is urgent, all I can say is that we want to get on with this at the best pace we can. We want it to work, deliver and hold up. Last time, in 2022, it did not survive its first contact with reality. We will publish the code shortly, but I ask for a bit of trust that I am getting on with it at the fastest possible pace.

This has been a valuable debate, and I am grateful for the challenges that colleagues set out. I have heard them clearly and they will form part of my considerations as Minister. I hope that the constituents who have had their voices brought into the room feel that they have been represented. I hope those who think, “Well, this happened to me too, and boy am I frustrated about it,” appreciate that change is coming. I very much look forward to delivering that change.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I call Baggy Shanker to sum up for a couple of minutes. That is not an invitation for a seven-minute speech.

Housing, Communities and Local Government

Alex Norris Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the debate on Local Government Finances: London on 26 March 2025.

[Alex Norris]

…I want to give some context about the financial settlement because it starts with a conversation about money, which has happened throughout the debate. The settlement for this year makes available a total core spending power for London, including the GLA, of up to £11.35 billion. That is a £726 million increase on last year, and it represents a 5.8% cash-terms increase.

[Official Report, 26 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 399WH.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris):

[Alex Norris]

…I want to give some context about the financial settlement because it starts with a conversation about money, which has happened throughout the debate. The settlement for this year makes available a total core spending power for London, including the GLA, of up to £13.35 billion. That is a £726 million increase on last year, and it represents a 5.8% cash-terms increase.

Wickford Town Centre Regeneration

Alex Norris Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on securing this important debate, which of course comes on the heels of the debate on Wickford station in March. He set out an excellent case, but before I reflect on that I would like to associate myself with his remarks about Councillor David Harrison. I did not know him, but the right hon. Gentleman’s tribute clearly showed what a passionate, effective and deeply caring man David Harrison was for the town of Wickford. I offer my condolences to his widow and family; I hope they can take some comfort from what the right hon. Gentleman said and from the fact that David Harrison’s name will now be carried on the record in this place for as long as this democracy stands. I think that is a very meaningful and proper tribute to him.

The right hon. Gentleman set out a passionate case for regeneration of the town centre. By definition, right hon. and hon. Members sit on different sides of this Chamber because we often have different views and different analyses of shared problems, but one thing that unites us is our frustration at the decline of town centres and the passion to do something about it.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

As a former chartered surveyor, with 30 years in commercial property before entering this place, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on the very proactive approach he is taking in speaking to the numerous stakeholders. I think that is exactly the correct approach in such a situation.

[Alex Norris]

I totally agree—one thing that I wrote down as the right hon. Gentleman was speaking was that I would not want to be Asda in this case. Asda does excellent work in Nottingham, but if it thinks that the right hon. Gentleman will go away quietly or be distracted by other things, it is very mistaken. He has a long career of showing that he will persist until eventually he gets what his constituents need, but—exactly as my hon. Friend says—that requires us to be in the room to have those conversations. I hope that Asda leans into that, because that will be very important indeed.

The conversation about town centres is one that we are having across the country. As a Government, we want to see growth in every corner of the UK—that is at the heart of our plan for change. We want that economic growth to raise living standards, and we want to support places to deliver the changes they need. That is an important message from this Dispatch Box, because we believe we have a really important role to play in the improvement of town centres, but equally profoundly, we have a responsibility to get the tools and resources out from this place into those communities. As much as I want to match the right hon. Gentleman’s energy and will seek to work with him in any way I can, I believe that those 40 people who came to the town council meeting last night are the experts. They ought to be given the tools and resources to make sure they can do the job, and that is very much my role as Minister, as well as doing what we can alongside that.

That is a pretty clear theme that runs through our devolution agenda. We are delivering the biggest ever transfer of power from this place to the regions. We have set out in the “English Devolution” White Paper how we think mayors can drive growth in their areas, equipped with integrated funding settlements and a range of new powers across planning, housing, transport and skills, all of which have been a part of this debate. Of course, Greater Essex is one of the six areas that were announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 February as members of the devolution priority programme, so this is something that is very much coming to Essex.

It is important that those powers and responsibilities exist at that level—that will lead to Greater Essex being part of the Council of the Nations and Regions, as well—but it is important that power is held locally, too. I was really pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the establishment of the business improvement district; I am also the Minister for BIDs, and I am passionate about the impact they can have. If there is a useful moment for me to meet and speak with that BID, I would be very keen to do so. I take every opportunity to talk to business improvement districts, because their insights about challenges and opportunities—as one would expect and hope—very much inform the work that we are trying to do.

As I have said, we want to put tools into local communities’ hands. Building on the work of the previous Government, we are very pleased to have commenced high street rental auctions in this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman talked about long-term vacant sites and the harm that individual vacant sites can do. We all have them in our own communities—they really bring down the place. The reality is that vacancy is rot for the vitality of high streets. It becomes a self-defeating cycle of further vacancy, increased crime and antisocial behaviour, a loss of identity, a loss of hope, and a loss of the belief that things can get better. Vacancy is rot, and it must be tackled.

There are good short-term measures that can be taken. I am really pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman’s council was willing to use section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but high street rental auctions are a good addition to those measures, compelling owners not just to clean up sites but to use them usefully. These are new powers that enable local authorities to require landlords to rent out persistently vacant commercial units, which will help to bring business back to the high street and drive growth across the country. They give local leaders the power to auction the lease of commercial properties that have been vacant for more than a year, providing business and community groups with the right to rent and giving local people the ability to shape and improve their high streets.

All local authorities, including Basildon borough council, are able to use these powers, and some resources are available to support them in doing so. I encourage all local authorities to reach out to us, because we are working with early adopters, but we want everybody to have access to those powers. We have a lot of insight already, and we would be very keen to have that conversation with any local authority. We will build on that by introducing a community right to buy, as was set out in our manifesto. That will give communities the ability to acquire assets of community value and not have that sense of the inexorable loss of much valued institutions.

As I say, this is about the shift of power to local communities, but it is also about national Government doing their job. In particular, I would like to talk about banking hubs. The right hon. Gentleman has previously mentioned banking challenges in his community and I think it is a challenge that many right hon. and hon. Members have. I am really pleased to hear what he says about Nationwide. If I was going to be a bit cheeky, I might say that there is a value in the building society model; a certain ethos and community mindedness is clearly played out there. On top of that, we are working very closely with banks to roll out 350 banking hubs to ensure critical cash and banking services, and face-to-face support. I know that that is important in Wickford; it is also important in Nottingham and Kimberley in my community.

If and when I get the chance to meet the Wickford business improvement district, I know that it will talk about business rates. They are a significant overhead and a real challenge. Through our reform, we will create a fairer system that protects the high street and supports investment. The recently enacted Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2025 enables the introduction of permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure from April 2026. That is a permanent tax cut that will ensure those sectors can benefit and grow.

In addition, we know that having a really good licensing regime is very important, but it can also be a barrier. Earlier this month, the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister announced their licensing taskforce to see what we can do to remove some of the barriers to growth in the hospitality sector and the wider night-time economy. There will be more to say on that and other issues affecting businesses and high streets in our forthcoming small business strategy.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned planning and transport, so I want to pick up on both those threads before I close. Again, it is really important that they are locally shaped. For local transport plans in particular, local authorities and local communities are the experts, and they should have the power to set and shape. We want to give them greater tools and we want to give parkers greater tools. We will shortly announce our plans for a new code of practice on parking, as set out in the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. I am really pleased to hear about the success of the station. For many people who visit Wickford, it will be the very first thing they see, so it should be a quality offering that shows the quality of the town.

On local plans, the right hon. Gentleman tempts me a little bit. I am conscious that there is a consultation opening in the autumn. I know that he and his constituents will make their views very clear, as they should. The key thing for us as a Government is that, yes, we know we have set a significant target of 1.5 million houses in this Parliament. We know that that has to be locally delivered. We know that that involves a planning number, but the agency within that should still be a local one. That is why local plans are so important. It is why Basildon having one is so important and why the consultation later this year will be so very important as well.

[Mr Francois]

On one level, I am loath to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, because he is being so charming and I do not want to spoil the moment. Just to place it on the record, on devolution, I do not quite see it the way that he and the Government do. None the less, he has been very helpful. We have a very active town council in Wickford and we have a very active BID. I will pass on his very kind offer to visit the BID. Perhaps he could come after—hopefully—we have celebrated the news that Asda will go ahead. Is that a fair deal?

[Alex Norris]

That seems an excellent deal and one that I will absolutely take. On devolution—if only we could go for an hour on that—I have followed a little bit what the right hon. Gentleman has said previously. I think that perhaps there might be a distinction between the Government’s plans with regard to devolution and with regard to local government reorganisation, because they are similar things but not the same thing. I would hope that the shift of power and resource to Greater Essex is a welcome thing, but I appreciate that he will make his views strongly on local government reorganisation between now and the autumn, when decisions will be made.

To conclude, the right hon. Gentleman made a very strong case and it is clear that he is going to give that leadership to his community. We want to see his community have the powers and resources to shape the place themselves, so that they can do their bit. We will do our bit, too, all with the common goal of improving Wickford town centre and town centres across the country.

Question put and agreed to.