Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to help support housing associations in the timely remediation of unsafe properties.

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

In June, we announced over £1 billion of investment to accelerate cladding remediation by giving social landlords the same access to Government remediation schemes as that afforded to private building owners. We will shortly publish revised guidelines on how to access the funding, and a joint plan with social landlords and regulators, in order to accelerate remediation and improve resident experience.

[Tulip Siddiq]

May I thank the Minister and his Department for pushing forward Awaab’s law? It cannot come soon enough, especially the 24-hour deadline for dealing with mould and damp, and especially for my constituent Yasmin, who has been living in an unacceptable situation with very young children for four years. However, I have real concerns about how ready housing associations are to implement the regulations, which are coming in very soon, in October. I have raised this issue with the National Housing Federation, but what assessment has the Minister made of housing associations’ ability to fully comply with all the regulations under Awaab’s law by October, so that we can ensure that all my constituents can live in a safe and healthy environment?

[Alex Norris]

First of all, may I say how sorry I am to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituent Yasmin has been living in those conditions for so long? We have published draft guidance for social landlords to make sure that they understand the requirements under Awaab’s law. As my hon. Friend would expect, we are working very closely with them to support their operational readiness. We took a phased approach, but we are encouraging social landlords to act now. They should raise any concerns with us now, so that we can consider how to best support them. In the meantime, they must meet their existing legal obligations.

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

On the importance of enforcing Awaab’s law, there are homes in my constituency that are damp, mouldy and publicly owned, but not by housing associations; they are owned by the hospitals trust, and include accommodation for nurses and their families. Can the Minister clarify the remit of this law, and the extent of his power and control in this area? Will he urge all public sector landlords to make sure that they comply with Awaab’s law, so that our nurses can bring up their families in places that are safe, clean and decent?

[Alex Norris]

I do not think it is any secret that I, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Housing Minister are very hard on all our partners, including the public sector, in order to make sure that they do their job. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important concern, and the Housing Minister will write to him on it.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to increase housing delivery.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We are committed to investing across all four nations and are delivering regeneration funding to many communities across Scotland, including the hon. Gentleman’s. I have met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which speaks for Scottish authorities, on a couple of occasions, and I really value its partnership and insight.

[Torcuil Crichton]

The £20 million community regeneration partnership with Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, the Western Isles council, will help develop the marine economy of Vatersay and Barra, the cultural heritage of Eriskay and North Uist and the spinal route through the islands. It puts islanders in the driving seat using the muscle of the UK Government. Does the Minister agree that this is a template for other UK Government Departments and their relationships with Scottish councils, and does it not stand in contrast with the game of thrones being played by the Scottish National party Government, who hoard decision making and money in Edinburgh?

[Alex Norris]

I note the passion with which my hon. Friend speaks about this. His leadership is going to be crucial to the success of this project. It speaks exactly to why we have taken the approach we are taking: we need local communities in charge. They are the experts on their lives and on what they need, and they should be in the driving seat. That is why we will work with them on this project, and through our plans set out in the spending review we will put that at the heart of everything we do.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

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

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

We are committed to rejuvenating our high streets and town centres. That includes tackling empty shops through high street rental auctions and legislating for a community right to buy to protect precious assets. That is set out in the spending review, providing funding to up to 350 places to help communities drive forward the changes they want to see in their areas.

[Julia Lopez]

I hear what the Minister is saying, but our high streets are under enormous pressure because of Labour’s jobs tax and cuts to business rates relief. As good tax-paying shops shut down, they are being replaced by dodgy front businesses. To fight that in my constituency, Havering trading standards last week seized £17,000-worth of illicit goods from one shop in Upminster through a collaboration between the council, the public, the police and me as the MP. This vital work is at risk because the Government are planning to shift council grant money away from the capital and up to places in the north of England. Can the Minister assure me that Labour is not, in the Mayor of London’s words, planning to “level down” the capital by threatening resources for councils here?

[Alex Norris]

I cannot accept the hon. Lady’s characterisation. If we look at the history of the 2010 to 2024 Government, we can see that the pressure on local authorities, which we have heard about from across the House, was so great that we saw trading standards wither on the vine across the country. In many places, they are down to single individuals, never mind numbers in single figures. We are clear that we are rebuilding local government, and hopefully we will see lots more brilliant enforcement like we have seen in Havering.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

Not far from here, on Whitehall and on Oxford Street, we have seen the proliferation of Harry Potter shops. These are not welcoming for our tourists and we do not believe that they are trading fairly. Will the Minister support me in encouraging His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to work with Westminster city council, which is doing great work in shutting these shops down, to ensure that we create space for thriving high street businesses?

[Alex Norris]

I entirely share my hon. Friend’s view. We want to see thriving high streets. We want to see full shops, but we want to see them trading fairly, properly and in a quality way, working well with their staff and being a good part of the community. When that is not happening, it is really important that action is taken—she raises some high-profile examples—and we of course stand ready to support local authorities in whatever way we can.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

15. What steps she is taking to build more social and affordable homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

T4. Despite decades of hard work, not least by the Birnbeck Regeneration Trust, the restoration of Weston-super-Mare’s nationally important Birnbeck pier is now at risk after the Royal National Lifeboat Institution pulled out, leaving a £5 million shortfall. Will the Minister outline how the Government might support the project, and will he meet me urgently to discuss next steps to restore that vital part of my town’s soul?

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

I recognise the efforts of the Birnbeck Regeneration Trust. My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for his community. We announced support for 350 communities at the spending review, and further details will follow, but I would be delighted to meet him to speak about Birnbeck in particular.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests. This weekend was a fantastic economic boost for many seaside towns, but along with the visitors, towns such as Poole and Bournemouth are blighted with illegal parking on roundabouts and across driveways and pavements. The Minister knows exactly what I am about to say: with 1,700 tickets issued, with the most dangerous cars towed away and with fines fixed for 20 years, does he believe that it is reasonable that council tax payers should pick up the bill of up to £200 per towed-away car for an illegal driver?

[Alex Norris]

It is incumbent on all of us to park with a degree of responsibility, particularly at peak times. I think parking-related issues are the No. 1 feature of my mailbag. Our consultation on private parking opened last Friday. I am interested in working with the hon. Lady and all Members to ensure that we get the balance right.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

T7. Many people, from the Women and Equalities Committee to the Miscarriage Association and Myleene Klass, have fought for miscarriage bereavement leave. Similarly, Can’t Buy My Silence and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) called for a ban on non-disclosure agreements. Thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister’s cross-departmental role, these protections will be delivered by Labour. How and when will they come into force?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the light of the Government’s determination to bring prosperity to coalfield communities like Doncaster, does the Minister share my desire for the fast delivery of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust industrial project? It is also important to transfer any potential funds directly to the CRT, so as not to delay any delivery with bureaucratic processes and bidding.

[Alex Norris]

The Government are committed to investing in coalfield communities, and I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend and Mayor Ros Jones to talk about their exciting plans in Doncaster, which we are investing in. We are looking very closely at what the Coalfields Regeneration Trust has sent us; the trust is, of course, a great legacy of the previous Labour Government, and we are committed to working with it.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

My constituent Ryan from Carpenders Park wrote me with concerns about the lack of community spaces, especially alongside the Government’s housing targets. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will ensure there are community spaces to support any new housing developments?

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

Cayton, a village in my constituency, could now become home to 2,500 new homes through the Government’s new homes accelerator. To ensure the success of that project, it is essential that we deliver the appropriate infrastructure, such as GP services, proper drainage and roads, all of which have not accompanied previous developments. What steps is the Minister taking to develop a coastal strategy to ensure that new developments for coastal villages like Cayton are delivered alongside infrastructure?

[Alex Norris]

The Government take a similar interest in coastal communities. As Local Growth Minister, I work closely with coastal authorities and have a significant eye on coastal communities. We want to strengthen the system of developer contributions to make sure that the new developments provide that infrastructure, with further details to come. The changes in the national planning policy framework, mentioned by the Minister for Housing and Planning, will support increased provision and modernisation of infrastructure. With regards to the south of Cayton, the new homes accelerator is supporting the delivery of 2,500 homes.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Hard-working traders at Stockton’s historic Shambles shopping centre were shocked to receive letters from Stockton’s Labour council telling them that they were to be evicted and inviting them to a meeting with less than 24 hours’ notice. I have been along to meet them and they are devastated, fearful for their futures and for their livelihoods. Does the Minister agree that councils should be backing small independent businesses, not making them homeless without alternatives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

We are seeing massive investment in the regeneration of Derby city centre, including the opening of a new entertainment venue and the reopening of our market hall, which is bursting with small and independent businesses. Regeneration also means ensuring that our city feels safe, welcoming and inclusive. Will the Minister tell us how the Department is working with the Home Office to ensure that our cities and towns are thriving and safe?

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend is tempting a Member of Parliament for Nottingham to say something nice about Derby, which is slightly challenging for my prospects when I go home on Thursday. I do recognise the characterisation of the exciting plans ahead for Derby, and I share exactly her point on policing. We can have the most vibrant community possible, but people will not participate unless they feel safe. We are talking with the Home Office, and I would tell my hon. Friend to watch this space.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Last week, Hurstpierpoint’s former Methodist church received permission to be converted into flats, despite the parish council registering it as an asset of community value and expressing its sincere wish to purchase it. Does the Minister think that the regulations for assets of community value are fit for purpose? How can they be improved?

[Alex Norris]

No, we do not think that the regulations are fit for purpose, which is why we are planning to amend them through the Bill that we published last week.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The “New life for city buildings” project in Truro is breathing new life into empty high street buildings and redeveloping them. I would love for the Minister to be able to see this for himself, so will he consider coming to Truro and attending our growth summit on 18 September?

[Alex Norris]

I do not have my diary for 18 September in front of me, but I do owe my hon. Friend a visit, and I will definitely make such a visit.

Private Parking Code of Practice

Alex Norris Excerpts

Friday 11th July 2025 Written Statements

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

The Government have today published the private parking code of practice consultation. The consultation www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice sets out the Government’s proposals and seeks views on raising standards across the private parking industry. This consultation will inform the preparation of a code of practice and compliance framework for private parking operators.

The private parking industry plays an important role in supporting our local economies and high streets. But we continue to hear reports of poor behaviour by parking operators that make it difficult for motorists to comply with the terms and conditions and leave them open to parking charges and escalating costs.

The proposals we are announcing today will deliver on the Government’s legal obligation in the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 to lay a code. The proposals seek to raise standards to better protect and support motorists who make every effort to comply with the car park’s terms and conditions, thereby allowing motorists to park without fear of receiving a parking charge while balancing the legitimate needs of operators to run their car parks in a way that benefits all motorists.

The consultation covers issues including standards in relation to signage, the duration of the parking period, including consideration periods and grace periods, the design and language of parking charge notices and the handling of complaints. It also seeks views on the levels at which parking charges and debt recovery fees should be capped. The current industry cap for parking charges is £100, with a 40% discount for early payment, while the cap for debt recovery fees is £70. The consultation seeks views on the retention of the existing £100 parking charge cap, and on the appropriate level for the current £70 debt recovery fee cap. It also, importantly, proposes new data collection requirements for private parking operators and trade associations, which will build a stronger evidence base to inform any future changes to the code.

We are consulting on improvements to the second-stage appeals service that motorists can use if they are not satisfied with a parking operator’s response to their first appeal. We also plan to produce non-statutory Government guidance for motorists. This will provide clear and easy-to-understand information to inform the motorist of their options throughout the process once a parking charge has been issued.

Alongside the code, we propose a transparent and robust framework for ensuring compliance with the code. The compliance framework comprises an independent scrutiny and oversight board and a United Kingdom Accreditation Service approved certification scheme to oversee the compliance of private parking operators with the standards in the code. This means that the parking industry will no longer be enforcing its own standards, and this will improve public perception of private car parks as well as ensuring fairness for motorists.

We are keen to hear views from as many people affected as possible, especially from users of private parking facilities and those who manage and operate them, so that we can create a new framework that works for both motorists and operators.

[HCWS809]

London’s National Economic Contribution

Alex Norris Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 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 for the first time, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) on securing this important debate. He set out a compelling case for important things that he wants to see with regards to housing, attracting the best talent and transport. I will seek to mirror those points, make a couple of points of my own and cover other points that hon. Members have raised.

This debate is timely for a couple of reasons. I will not wave a prop—not knowing your tolerance for such things in the Chair, Mr Western, I dare not test your mettle—but I speak 90 minutes after my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution introduced the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in the Chamber. That Bill will make the Greater London Authority an established mayoral strategic authority, which will mean the Mayor of London will benefit from a right to request powers to add to the devolution framework, or to pilot them in London where he thinks they will help him to deliver growth. It is also timely because multiple colleagues have sought to tempt me on the fairer funding formula, and I will cover those in my remarks as well. That consultation is under way; I think colleagues have probably contributed to it in what they have said today, and there will be opportunities to do so until 15 August.

I am sure it is no surprise to hon. Members to hear me say that economic growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government. For that to be successful, we must have a successful London. It is the world’s greatest capital city—no Nottingham, perhaps, but a peerless global city. I was resisting going to Huddersfield, for the benefit of the Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal); but I think I have laboured that one enough.

London’s success is Britain’s success, exactly as colleagues have said, and we, as the Government, are committed to playing our role in that. I was really pleased to be with the Mayor of London and with London councils as he set out his long-term vision for local growth in the recent London growth plan, and we will play our role in that success. I know Mayor Sadiq Khan does not need garlands from me, but he is an outstanding example of how values-led, progressive leadership, sustained over time, can really drive change. I will talk about some of that economic success, but I think it speaks to his work.

As hon. Friends and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), have said, London’s success powers the country’s prosperity. It represents nearly a quarter of UK GDP and 8.6 million jobs. I think too of its cultural power and all those things colleagues have talked about, the tourists during the day and what they will be doing tonight in the night-time economy.

Mr West, you may forgive me if my mind wanders about three and a half miles north of here to Lord’s today, as England bat against India; again, that is an example of how—every weekend, it seems—huge global events take place in this city. We have world-leading educational institutions; multiple colleagues have mentioned Imperial College. We have thriving creative clusters such as the East Bank, and pioneering innovation districts such as the knowledge quarter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said. All of those are good—good for London, good for Londoners, and good for all of us in the country.

It was impossible not to be struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said about all that is going on in Hillingdon, alongside his constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. In one borough alone, there is an extraordinary contribution to Britain’s story—not just to its economy as a whole, but to its contribution across the world as well.

Making the most of that talent, those assets and those opportunities means that the Government and London’s leaders, including the Mayor, must work together to realise the city’s full potential. I want to talk a little, in the spirit of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater’s speech, about how we can contribute in areas such as housing, talent and transport, and to touch on regeneration as well.

Starting with housing, it is no secret, as the Opposition spokesperson mentioned, that we are committed to historic levels of house building, both to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, as colleagues have said, and as a fundamental for unlocking economic growth. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) talked about housing affordability. It is hard not to be struck by research from the GLA that indicates a 1% increase in housing affordability in London could yield a £7.3 billion boost in economic output over a decade. There is a clear return there, a point my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater also made.

We are working in partnership with the Mayor of London to unlock and maximise London’s contribution to the 1.5 million homes target, including through the establishment of a City Hall developer investment fund. We are also keen to support strategic site development through the new homes accelerator, working with local authorities and other stakeholders to overcome regulatory obstacles and provide on-the-ground support for high-potential sites such as Beam Park, High Road West and Billet Road. In addition, the Euston Housing Delivery Group is committed to transforming the Euston area into a vibrant and inclusive neighbourhood, in collaboration with Camden council, and delivering thousands of new homes, including a range of affordable housing options. 

That of course links to something that I was very proud of: the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), announced at the spending review a new £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. That will run from 2026 to 2036, and we will allocate up to 30% of its funding—nearly £12 billion—to the GLA for delivery in the capital. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner made important points about social housing; I hope that addresses those to some degree.

There are important points still around housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) made an important point about the Building Safety Regulator—one than has been raised with me by the GLA, the Mayor’s office and beyond on multiple occasions. I want to be clear that this Government believe that safe buildings are a moral imperative. No one knows that better than the constituents of the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater. It is a moral imperative that people have housing. I think every day of the 6,000 children in bed and breakfast accommodation across the country. There are 180,000 in temporary accommodation, and that is before hidden homelessness. We have a moral duty to them to ensure that houses get built.

We have worked closely with the BSR to help it resolve some of its operational challenges. We have put more resources in and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater said, injected fresh leadership through the excellent Andy Roe, who is widely accepted to be brilliant in the safety space and as an operational leader. I look forward to the impact that will make. My hon. Friend mentioned the London remediation board, which I co-chair with the excellent deputy mayor for housing, Tom Copley. That is crucial to ensure that people are living in safe homes and that those who are out of their homes, in many cases for a long time, are able to be in those homes. That board has my full commitment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater mentioned access to Government schemes for remediation. I am delighted that, through the spending review, we have been able to equalise access for social housing. That is a two-for-one benefit: it will get buildings fixed faster and more social homes built. I look forward to that kicking in and seeing its impact.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater mentioned talent. We have to be aware that, in a global economy, the race to attract the strongest talent is fierce—that might speak to your beloved Arsenal’s struggle to find a centre forward, Mr Western. That global race is hotly contested. It is about getting the tools right and, as my hon. Friend knows well from his outstanding work on economic crime before he came to this place, about making sure that the routes are effective and deliver what we want, which is getting talented people through.

We offer a number of different routes: the innovator founder route for entrepreneurs; the global talent route for leaders and future leaders in key fields; the high potential individual route for those at an early stage who have high potential; the Government-authorised exchange scheme for short periods of work experience; and, for overseas businesses, assigning workers through the global business mobility route. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater made further suggestions—I will make sure that he gets a response from the Minister for Migration and Citizenship.

On transport, as multiple colleagues have mentioned, we cannot unlock the housing we want to deliver without proper infrastructure. We do not want to build homes that people cannot get to and from. That is why we recently announced the almost £2.2 billion multi-year capital funding settlement for TfL, which covers the spending review period. That is the largest multi-year settlement for London for over a decade and gives TfL the funding certainty to improve and enhance the quality of the capital’s transport infrastructure. That investment is crucial to delivering economic growth.

We recognise that, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said, funding for London helps to grow the economy across the country and supports UK industry in the supply chain. Two thirds of TfL’s UK supply chain is money spent outside London, so there is benefit for everyone.

[Natasha Irons]

I want to highlight the local impact of that £2.2 billion, which means that my community in Croydon will finally get new trams. Croydon is not the only place in London that has trams, but we have the oldest trams in the country, and the sustainable, multi-year funding settlement means that my outer London borough will get the transport it needs for the people in my community to access the opportunities of central London. Does my hon. Friend agree that a Labour Government and a Labour Mayor working together with long-term funding and a grown-up conversation leads to prosperity for everybody?

[Alex Norris]

As my hon. Friend says, the evidence is there. With the spending review, we talk about billions of pounds here and hundreds of millions of pounds there, but I always think that these things have to be real in people’s lives, and that will be very real in the lives of the people in her community. The impact of the shared vision is so important. As I said, we will feel that across the country through the supply chain. TfL has procured Piccadilly line trains from Yorkshire, supporting up to 700 skilled jobs: 250 in construction and 1,700 in the onward supply chain. What an outstanding bit of investment that is.

Hon. Members made multiple different points on other transport infrastructure, and indeed offered the Treasury and the Department for Transport a future list for more to do. The Government are providing £25 billion for the delivery of HS2 phase 1, including the Euston terminus, which will improve connectivity to the south-east. Emulating the success of King’s Cross, that will help to transform Euston into a destination where people live and work, not just a gateway for travel, although it is an outstanding one.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater mentioned DLR Thamesmead, as did other colleagues. We are committed to working with TfL to explore opportunities for delivery in that space. I want to link it just briefly to the industrial strategy, because that was a very important national document showing where our country’s economic future lies. All the things in the industrial strategy—even the most national, even the most global, even the most profound, whether it be an employer, a sector or a cluster—are all local somewhere. Of course, I would say that as the Minister for Local Growth.

London has a really important part to play in that. As the Minister responsible, I am pleased that the industrial strategy zones action plan has set out enhanced support for the Thames freeport, focusing on clean energy, added-value manufacturing and advanced logistics. The freeport has unrivalled global connectivity to more than 130 ports in 65 countries. The Thames freeport includes the ports at Tilbury, London Gateway as well as Ford’s Dagenham plant, and will create 21,000 jobs, building on London’s deep maritime history. When we put national flags in the sand, we of course make sure that London is a core part of that.

I would like to turn to the subject of Hammersmith bridge. I did not have anywhere else I could fit it into my speech, Mr Western; from a port to a bridge, it is not so far away. I want to assure the hon. Member for Richmond Park that central Government are committed to working closely with TfL and with the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham on that restoration project. There is that sign of good faith: central Government have committed £17 million so far to it, including £4.7 million for repair of the bridge hangers. I will make sure that Ministers have heard the hon. Lady’s plea for greater progress and certainty in the future. Her points were well made.

Similarly, I will turn to the fair funding formula, which has been a consistent feature of the debate. Hon. Members have made their points and made them strongly. I want to say very clearly that we are in the middle of a consultation, which runs to 15 August. I know that Members’ local authorities will be making contributions. I have no doubt that London Councils will and that the Local Government Association will. Members also can and should contribute to it themselves. Their points have been made very well and I will make sure that the Minister for Local Government hears them.

I may be slightly less forthcoming, I am afraid, for the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), on tax policy ahead of the Budget, because he invites me to cause some serious trouble. I am afraid, even though my instinct in life normally is for a degree of jeopardy, that is a degree of jeopardy too far for me.

I want to turn to the issue of regeneration and speak to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East made about global competition with New York and Paris. We should always be seeking to win those competitions, and that is part of our important work as a Government, with the Mayor of London, on the regeneration of Oxford Street. Oxford Street is one of those great beacon locations in the world. It has 120 million visitors a year, and I suspect all Members present have visited at some point. In 2022, it contributed an estimated £25 billion to the economy, but there are challenges. There are things that all high streets are facing, such as competition from online shopping, but there are also things that are peculiar to Oxford Street, such as congestion. That is why the Mayor of London and the Deputy Prime Minister have announced proposals to regenerate and pedestrianise Oxford Street to ensure its continued success, and that includes the establishment of a mayoral development corporation. We know that that is a good way of co-ordinating delivery, and I have no doubt that that will help us in the global competition to attract more visitors and more investment, to create more jobs and to drive more growth.

I hope that I have been able to give colleagues that clear commitment from the Government that we understand that London’s success is Britain’s success, as well as give that clear sense that it is no one’s interest, whether that is those in Nottingham or anywhere else in the country, to try to pull London down in the hope that that might in some way be successful for the rest of us. That has never been my version of politics or life. I have never thought that my neighbour’s success is my detriment. In fact, I think the evidence shows exactly the opposite. We need a thriving London, and having a thriving London is part of having a thriving country. We can do both things at the same time: have a capital that remains and continues to be the greatest global capital and have growth across all our nations and regions. Those are twin prizes that are common across all parties and all of Parliament, and we can achieve both of them.

Building Safety Levy

Alex Norris Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Written Statements

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

The Government are committed to securing the swift remediation of buildings with historical building safety defects. The building safety levy is a key part of the remediation funding package, which protects leaseholders from costs and ensures taxpayers are not further burdened. We currently estimate the levy will need to raise £3.4 billion over 10 years or more. Today we took an important step towards implementing the levy and will lay the draft Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations in Parliament as we committed to do in the statement I made to the House on 24 March. The draft regulations are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. Subject to parliamentary approval and the making of the regulations, the regulations provide for all aspects of the levy including how the levy will be calculated and administered, and provide that the levy will start being charged on certain applications and notices from 1 October 2026.

Alongside the regulations, to help stakeholders prepare, we have also published operational guidance explaining how the levy is intended to be charged, collected and passed back to central Government. The guidance is aimed at a broad range of users, including the housebuilding sector, local authorities, registered building control approvers and the Building Safety Regulator to help users understand their roles and obligations. Stakeholders involved in the building safety levy now have the information they need to prepare in earnest for its launch on 1 October 2026. My officials have a comprehensive engagement programme planned and will work with stakeholders to support them to be ready for levy launch next year. This includes regular meetings and webinars with local authorities, as well as targeted support for RBCAs and developers.

Local authorities with building control responsibilities will act as collecting agents for the levy. New burdens funding will be provided to local authorities for set-up costs. Collecting authority administrative costs will be recovered from levy revenues received, with the balance transferred to central Government.

Subject to parliamentary approval, and as previously announced, the levy will be charged on certain building control applications and notices. Applications and notices for the provision of new dwellings or student accommodation in England submitted on or after 1 October 2026 will be subject to the levy regime. Exemptions from the levy charge include affordable housing, supported housing and developments of fewer than 10 dwellings. Any housing built by non-profit providers of social housing will be exempt. The levy rates vary by local authority area to take account of differences in housing development economics across different local authority areas and across previously and non-previously developed land. These rates were published on 24 March this year and are set out in the regulations. A 50% discount rate will be charged for development on previously developed land, to reflect the often higher cost of such development. The levy will need to be paid before the earlier of first occupation and submission of the notice or application required at completion stage.

I will also publish an assessment of impact and rates methodology note for the levy. The assessment sets out the expected operational impacts on local authorities and house builders, among other things. The methodology note sets out the five-step approach taken to calculate the levy rates that are set out in the regulations.

[HCWS808]

Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 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 McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing the debate; thanks to the way he set us off, this has been an excellent way to start the parliamentary day. Throughout his time in Parliament, he has been—and will remain, no doubt, for the rest of his time here—a champion of neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood planning and a consistent advocate for a locally led planning system.

The interest from hon. Members shows that, with many neighbourhood plans having been developed across England—indeed, with interest from beyond England; I was flicking through my notes to try to identify what I might have missed there—neighbourhood planning is a topic of interest across the House. Likewise, the future role for neighbourhood plans in the planning system will be closely watched by communities who have invested time and energy to participate in neighbourhood planning. Once we get beyond the politics, we are at risk of one of the most dangerous things in this place: vicious agreement. It is no secret that we as a Government believe in a plan-led system. The plan-led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of our planning system.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) talked about the neighbourhood plan referendum in Cannington tomorrow. I want to underline for any Cannington residents watching that the best way of allowing communities to shape development in their area is to have an up-to-date local plan that ensures the provision of supporting infrastructure so that the development proceeds in a sustainable manner, in exactly the way the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) described.

We have to end the uncertainty that plagues development across so much of the country by putting local plans back in their proper place as the foundation of the planning system. I hope I can give a degree of comfort to the hon. Member for Bridgwater and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is not as they characterise it. The foundation of the planning system is those local plans and those local communities. We have talked about democracy and local say, and they are the anchor for that.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

If neighbourhood plans are as important as the Minister says, why are the Government withdrawing funding?

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman runs a paragraph or two ahead in my speech; I promise I will address that point shortly. I was talking about local plans, but I will turn to neighbourhood plans shortly.

To help us achieve our ambition of universal coverage of up-to-date local plans, which I think is a shared ambition, not least because of comments made by hon. Members today, we intend to introduce a new system for plan making later this year. In February, we responded to the plan-making consultation, which confirmed our vision for that new system. We will provide further details soon, in line with our commitment to provide a reasonable familiarisation period.

On neighbourhood plans, evidence shows that they work best where they build on the foundation of the local plan to meet the priorities and preferences of the community. In a planning system that is all too often antagonistic, neighbourhood planning can bring the community together in support of development, often resulting, as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth said, in more housing for the area and additional benefits to the local community. If we are to hit our target of building 1.5 million homes within this Parliament, the community support that neighbourhood planning attracts will be a very important component. I can give assurance of that.

[Wendy Morton]

On meeting targets, would the Government undertake to ensure sufficient funding for the brownfield remediation process, to unlock sites across the country? All of us in the House acknowledge the importance of unlocking those sites, because the regeneration opportunities would be massive, but it needs funding from central Government.

[Alex Norris]

I appreciate that point and share that view. I stare at a site, and probably, I will retire still staring at it—I should not make that commitment to my constituents, as they would encourage me to—in my old council ward, Johnsons dye works, that has been brownfield and vacant for three decades. The site is of complex ownership. We need those sites developed because they are a blight on the community. I completely accept that point. I think we made clear in the spending review our significant commitment as central Government to making funding available to get sites going. I hope that gives the right hon. Lady a degree of comfort about the Government’s direction.

[Dr Evans]

Just before he took the previous intervention, the Minister was talking about the power of neighbourhood plans and the community coming together. My worry is that, if there is no funding, why would volunteers step forward for such a big undertaking, requiring legal prowess? That is a big worry, and the Government do not seem to have explained how they have filled that void. At the end of the day, this is volunteers working hundreds of thousands of hours to deliver for their communities.

[Alex Norris]

I accept that point. I hope the hon. Gentleman will show a degree of forbearance, as I will come to that point shortly—I make that commitment to him and to the hon. Member for Bridgwater.

Neighbourhood planning is a well-established part of our planning system, and we want that to remain the case. Our Department is aware of more than 1,800 plans in place and 3,150 designated neighbourhood areas. I believe that in the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth’s constituency alone, there are seven made plans, with five more actively progressing, which reflects brilliantly on his constituents. I too express my admiration for those who join neighbourhood planning groups: they could be doing anything else with their lives, but they choose to put their shoes on, go out and have difficult conversations with their neighbours in the interest of the community. That is a very British and wonderful thing. I hope that, on reflection, the people of Cannington come out in their droves tomorrow to play their part in that process.

I turn now to our announcement following the spending review that we are unable to commission further funded support for neighbourhood planning groups. It was not a decision taken lightly, and I recognise the concerns it has prompted among groups, local planning authorities and hon. Members. I pay tribute to Locality, the National Association of Local Councils and other organisations that played their part in that process. I worked on it very closely with Locality, an excellent organisation that is very good at making community voice heard. We want to be clear, however, that that is not an abolition of neighbourhood planning. We believe that neighbourhood planning is an important part of the planning system.

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth asked two questions. Do the Government intend to end neighbourhood planning? No, we do not. Do we intend or wish secretly for the phasing out of neighbourhood planning? No, we do not. Communities can continue to prepare neighbourhood plans where they consider doing so is in their best interests.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous. From his language—he said that this was not a decision taken lightly—this is clearly another victim of the Prime Minister’s U-turn on welfare and the Chancellor now having to find money. Can he not see that there will be a problem? The simple logistics of getting together a local neighbourhood plan with no funding, including consultation—parish councils are not paid, but are often the most trusted of the councils—will mean a reduction in the number of neighbourhood plans and consultations. Does he not see that that is a bad thing for our villages across this country?

[Alex Norris]

On the point about the nation’s finances, it is the hon. Gentleman’s job to point the finger at the Government, but he and his party will continue to struggle until and unless they accept their role in that. At the end of the day, that inability to grasp the legacy of their 14 years in government will not help their fortunes in the future—but that is a matter for him, not me.

Difficult decisions have to be made. We have to weigh up where to put taxpayers’ money. Our analysis is that after more than a decade of taxpayer support, neighbourhood planning should be possible without further Government funding. Since 2013, more than £71 million of support has gone into this area. That speaks to the points made by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). There has been a significant period of work in this area. There is a network of planners and groups with skills and expertise in preparing neighbourhood plans, who can help others to do so. I hope that addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) about access.

[Wendy Morton]

The Minister makes an important point about the level of expertise needed by local parishes and town councils to prepare their evidence base and documentation. However, if there is no funding from central Government, the only way I can see for a parish council or town council to find the funding is by raising the precept, which would be tantamount to Labour increasing the taxes of local people. Does the Minister agree, or is there an alternative?

[Alex Norris]

The right hon. Lady will know, despite not having any parish councils, that the precept is a matter for local authorities. That is a decision that they will have to make. We recognise the concern on resourcing, and it will depend on the area. However, even though national structured support is ending, there is now expertise and know-how within the market for local groups to tap into, which should help to develop their ability. Hopefully, some of that combined support can help to lower costs.

[Brian Mathew]

As I tried to make out in my speech, the worry of a two-tier system, where some communities can afford a neighbourhood plan and others simply cannot, will be important. The only way out that I can think of would be a simplification of the neighbourhood planning process, which would allow communities to get on and do it themselves without the need for expensive consultants to be involved, as there is at the moment. Is something the Minister would consider?

[Alex Norris]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman succour on that point, but I hope that I can offer something in lieu. I accept that these things can become complex, but sometimes things are complex because they are complex. I do not think that we can wish that away and simplify a process in way that would mean taking away the fundamentals that require complex organisation and preparation. I think he is speaking to a wider point that also came up in the debate: complex planning matters ought to be the purview of local plans. If local plans are done properly, a lot of that complexity and difficulty will fall out and leave space for neighbourhood plans to operate as designed, rather than having to backfill the failures of local authorities.

I could not help but get the sense from the contribution of the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth that a lot of the issues are due to the absence of a local plan in his community. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire talked about speculative development. The story, as he put it, in his part of the world seemed to be developing, but that is clearly a risk until the process is finished. I cannot help but think that the issue there is the same. Similarly, the point that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made about infrastructure falls within the purview of the local plan. We have to get the balance right.

I turn to local planning authorities, which have not been a feature of this debate, but have been a feature of the public debate. The end of funding for neighbourhood planning groups has created a misconception that our commitment to funding local planning authorities for their neighbourhood planning function will be affected. I want to be clear to anybody watching and to hon. Members in the Chamber that that is not the case. That again speaks to the point about the interrelationship between the local and neighbourhood planning functions. We will make announcements about the arrangements for this financial year in due course.

I turn to where neighbourhood plans sit in decision making, because I want to address the point made by the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). It has never been the case that neighbourhood plans are determinative in every case, always. National policy is clear that an application contrary to an up-to-date neighbourhood plan should not usually be approved. I totally accept and understand the frustration that people would feel if they are approved, but we have to be honest: under the system as it stands—this does not result from any changes that we have made—when the balance of considerations in the case outweighs the neighbourhood plan, the development can take place. That is the world as it is today. In response to what the hon. Gentleman said, we are not planning to make changes to that. Again, the best thing that communities can do is have neighbourhood plans sitting underneath a local plan for their community.

Before I finish, I turn to the points that hon. Members made about local government reorganisation and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 reforms. I hold the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) in very high regard, but I know that to be in his company is to expect a degree of impudence, so I was not surprised that he trumpeted provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that his Government did not turn on. There is no point in the powers being on the statute book if they are not turned on—that does not help—so I chafe a little at the characterisation that that is somehow our failure, rather than Conservatives’. Surely, they are at least equally complicit.

I want to give clarity to colleagues and those watching that no local government reorganisation will affect the status of neighbourhood plans; they will continue to have effect and will form part of the development plan for their area.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The way I see it, under devolution, more powers will be devolved down to parish councils, so indirectly they will have more responsibilities by the very nature of what the Government are trying to do in creating unitaries. Do the Government really believe that a volunteer on a parish council, which will have more responsibilities under devolution, will turn their attention to neighbourhood plans, especially when there is no funding, given the responsibility that goes with them? My concern is that there are competing issues for parish councillors.

[Alex Norris]

There are a couple of points there. I noted this and decided not to say anything about it because it might look like I was trying to be rude, and I am not. The hon. Gentleman should not conflate local government reorganisation and devolution. Although they are, of course, related to some degree, they are different. Local government reorganisation is about changing local authorities’ boundaries so that they have the right size and heft to function. The power conversation is slightly different.

I have to say that, in my experience, parish and town councillors are generally excellent, so I believe that they are able to balance competing interests. I do not accept that planning would not be seen as a priority; that is not an option for any politician in any role. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I hope I can assure him that local government reorganisation is not likely to drive material change in this space, not least because the plans will continue unaffected. The most important thing will be, as the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire said, that the new authorities get into the local plan process to ensure they have the cover and that good organisation and order.

Neighbourhood plans can play an important part in planning decision making across the country, and we want communities to continue to prepare them if they wish to do so. We want to encourage more constructive engagement across the whole planning system. Neighbourhood planning has shown that communities are willing and eager to embrace development when given the opportunity, as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth said. I congratulate him on the case that he made and on securing this debate. I thank all colleagues for their contributions.

Fire and Rescue Best Value

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Written Statements

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

All right hon. Members will recognise the importance of having well-functioning fire and rescue services that provide essential services that local communities rely upon, and that lives ultimately depend on. Today, I am announcing to the House a best value inspection of West Midlands Fire and Rescue Authority.

The relationship between the authority and West Midlands Fire and Rescue Service has come under intense local and national scrutiny in recent months. While the service continues to protect and respond to the needs of its local community, there is concern that the authority, in its oversight and scrutiny of the service, may have failed to deliver against its key best value functions of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

In response to this, the Secretary of State, under section 26 of the Local Government Act 1999, has ordered a best value inspection of West Midlands Fire and Rescue Authority. This independent inspection will examine the authority’s compliance with its best value duty to ensure that any failings are identified, addressed and rectified. This focus on governance differentiates this inspection from His Majesty’s inspectorate of fire and rescue services’ report, published on 18 June 2025, which focused on operations. The inspection’s recommendations may additionally identify broader lessons that can be applied across other fire and rescue services.

The Secretary of State has exercised her powers in section 10 of the 1999 Act to appoint Fenella Morris KC as the lead inspector, Anna Bicarregui and Gethin Thomas as assistant inspectors, and Tasnim Shawkat as assistant inspector (monitoring officer). It is intended that the inspection will deliver its recommendations during the first quarter of 2026.

Conclusion

I want to acknowledge the work of the dedicated staff of West Midlands Fire and Rescue Service, who continue to deliver this vital service for their local communities. This inspection will ensure that the lessons from the past are learned and any improvements that need to be made are swiftly implemented.

I will place in the Library of the House copies of the terms of reference and, in time, reports and associated materials.

[HCWS787]

Residential Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans

Alex Norris Excerpts

Friday 4th July 2025 Written Statements

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

The Government are today laying regulations to address the last three outstanding Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 recommendations, on personal emergency evacuation plans, or PEEPs, and building-level evacuation plans.

The Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 mandate residential PEEPs and mark a long-awaited step forward in improving the fire safety and evacuation of vulnerable residents who were so badly let down on the night of the tragedy. It applies to residents living in England in high-rise residential buildings—at least seven storeys or 18 metres high—and 11-metre to 18-metre high buildings with a simultaneous evacuation strategy.

Through these regulations, residents with physical and mental disabilities and impairments will be entitled to:

a person-centred fire risk assessment to consider their specific individual risks and ability to evacuate in the event of a fire;

the measures that could be reasonably and proportionately introduced to mitigate against their risks and aid their evacuation;

a written statement recording what they should do in a fire and;

provision of information to their local fire and rescue service (where the resident consents to the information being shared) so they know where the most vulnerable residents live and can support their evacuation or rescue in the event of a fire.

The regulations also mandate production of whole-building evacuation plans, shared with local fire and rescue services.

The laying of the regulations addresses recommendations 33.22c, 33.22e, 33.22f—now numbers 59, 60 and 61—from phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry.

The Government have committed funding this year to begin this important work by supporting social housing providers to deliver residential PEEPs for their renters. Future years’ funding will be confirmed through the spending review and business planning processes.

In addition, Government are today publishing a factsheet and toolkit to support building owners and managers as they develop residential PEEPs. This toolkit contains real-life and proven initiatives to support vulnerable residents which have already been successfully deployed at scale.

The regulations will come into force on 6 April 2026.

The Government are committed to continued and full engagement with stakeholders as the policy is operationalised to ensure that it addresses the needs of users and reflects their lived experience. Specifically, we will:

continue to engage key stakeholders on draft statutory guidance to support building owners and managers in fulfilling the requirements of the regulations. The guidance will be published in the autumn.

set up a stakeholder advisory panel with representatives of disability stakeholders and building owners and managers, to identify and review new initiatives for inclusion in the toolkit.

continue to listen to stakeholders as residential PEEPs beds in, as part of monitoring the impact and effectiveness of the policy.

[HCWS782]

Building Safety Regulator

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Written Statements

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

Today I am updating Parliament on changes to the Building Safety Regulator.

The Government’s response to the Grenfell inquiry set out our commitment to take forward the recommendation for a “single construction regulator” for the building system, to tackle fragmentation and incoherence in the regulatory system.

As a sign of our commitment to move at pace on implementing the inquiry’s recommendations, we are taking the initial steps towards a single construction regulator by supporting the BSR to move into a new phase of operations. We will publish a prospectus for reform in the autumn setting out further details on the single regulator.

Since its establishment, the BSR has overseen a fundamental change in the built environment, taking significant risk out of the system and ensuring residents are at the heart of house building. It is an important and non-negotiable part of the built environment system as we deliver 1.5 million new homes and increase the pace of remediation of unsafe buildings. I am grateful to the Health and Safety Executive for the invaluable leadership and experience it has brought to the establishment and early operations of the BSR. This was the biggest change to the building safety regime in decades, and its expertise provides the foundations for future reforms this Government will bring forward.

Everyone deserves a safe home—and the opportunity to access one. That is why we need a regulatory system that is not only robust, but also clear, consistent, and easy to navigate. Regulatory certainty and efficiency are essential to unlocking the investment needed to build the homes this country urgently needs.

The reforms introduced to date to ensure building safety are crucial, but this Government recognise the operational challenges the BSR and the wider sector are facing in their implementation.

That is why, together with industry, we have been working urgently to address operational challenges so that the BSR works effectively, enabling the safe homes this country needs to be built, and a system that balances proportionate regulation without compromising safety outcomes.

Today, my Department will announce that:

We are investing in strengthened and dedicated leadership in the BSR to lead the transition of its operations out of HSE in the future and to provide a dedicated focus to its operations. Andy Roe has been appointed as non-executive chair of a shadow board of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, pending its establishment as an executive agency to take on the functions of the BSR from the HSE. This is part of initial steps towards creating a single construction regulator. Andy Roe brings a wealth of experience to the role following a career of organisational transformation, industry experience, and strong relationships with the sector and has played an integral role within the building safety regime since its inception. We will also introduce a new chief executive officer to lead the BSR, Charlie Pugsley.

The BSR is implementing a new fast-track process. This will bring building inspector and engineer capacity directly into the BSR to enable a rapid acceleration to the processing of existing newbuild cases and remediation decisions. Alongside this, we are working hard to partner with industry to deliver results—and will shortly support the publication of industry guidance to improve the quality of applications—and so reduce processing times. To ensure transparency, the BSR will publish key performance related information quarterly, in the coming weeks. These changes will see no compromise in the standards expected of design and construction.

We are bolstering long-term investment in the capacity of the BSR and building capacity within industry. The BSR will recruit more than 100 members of staff by the end of the year to enhance operations.

These changes position the BSR for the coming years, demonstrating the commitment of Government to invest in safety and residents.

[HCWS749]

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.