(3 days, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. It is so apt that you are in the Chair for this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) on securing it. Her contribution was a love letter to her community and it gave us all great pleasure. It shaped this debate—a debate about what has been, but also about what might be. There is an awful lot to be excited about in what may be in the future, so I am pleased to have an opportunity to highlight the profound cultural, historic and economic significance of the Black Country. This is a community that was the beating heart of the industrial revolution, renowned for coal mining, for chains made in Cradley Heath, for glass produced in Wordsley, for the iron and steel foundries of Tipton and Wednesbury, and for the leather made in the community of the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—as she herself said. What pride it must give her constituents to see that global, indelible and historic link to the late Queen. What a wonderful calling card that is for them.
Both for them and for other Walsall constituencies. I definitely would not want to be seen to favour one end of Walsall over the other—certainly not with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz.
I think also of the pride it must give my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and his constituents to see that Chubb branding everywhere they go in the world—what that says about their community and the contribution it has made.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury said in opening the debate, we could think of those industries in terms of their factories, their furnaces, their foundries and their tanneries, but actually it is people—the people of the Black Country—that were all those things: that showed all that creativity, that powered the nation, and that laid the groundwork for modern manufacturing and engineering. We also cannot decouple from our proud history as a movement, their struggle for recognition that the work they did was the magic there, and that they ought to have a share in its benefits, be treated properly, go to work—and come home again. I know that is of great importance to my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury, as it was in her previous work. We see that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) says, in that iconic chainmakers’ festival and what that says specifically about the strike in 1910, and in general the struggle of the labour movement throughout that period to get a fair shake.
That speaks also to the cultural impact of the Black Country, which is a treasure trove of unique food— I am not sure I am going to pull on that thread any further than colleagues have—and unique traditions. In sports, we have heard about Jeff Astle. It is impossible not to mention him, and the work of the Jeff Astle Foundation. I will, of course, say that Jeff Astle was a son of Nottinghamshire, not so far up the road from my own community. I think of my trip to the Hawthorns in 2001 to see Manchester City lose 4-nil to West Bromwich Albion—we have had success since, but not with me present.
In politics, I am really glad that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) mentioned Adrian Bailey. As a fellow Labour and Co-operative MP, he showed great kindness to me as a young parliamentarian. We have been well represented today by excellent Black Country politicians, and of course dialects—I cannot wait to see what the Official Report does with elements of the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), which, I have to say, I could not follow.
However, colleagues who are sat to the side of and behind me, who are in their first Parliament, have to some degree failed in the very important task of telling those of us who are not from the Black Country, and who perhaps do not have their familiarity with their region, where the best pint is. That is custom and practice although, as with many other customs and practices in this place, I am sure they will learn over the years.
The Black Country is also the birthplace of music legends like Led Zeppelin and home to the award-winning Black Country Museum, which keeps the area’s industrial and cultural heritage alive. But as in my community—and in Newtownards, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said—the deindustrialisation of the ’70s and ’80s led to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, and an economic legacy from which the area has still not fully recovered. Unemployment remains stubbornly high, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen said, productivity is below the national average, and healthy life expectancy is significantly lower than in more affluent parts of the country. The challenge for the region and for the Government is clear, and that is why we are so determined to partner with the region to change that by driving growth and unlocking investment.
The former strengths that we have talked about can be the heart of future prosperity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury said in opening, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge also said, the future is bright. I could not agree more. The hon. Member for Strangford talked about the importance of skilled work. I totally agree, because the share of manufacturing jobs in the Black Country is already significantly higher than the UK average, and the area has modern strengths, as a hub for advanced engineering, with global supply chains, a growing tech sector, and defence, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen.
This debate is well timed, coming eight days after the anniversary that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills mentioned. Indeed, it is perfectly timed for the exciting announcement that my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury mentioned about sumo and the clear skies programme—another example of how the Black Country is going to shape the global economy in the future, through the brilliant innovation of its people.
The link to this from central Government starts with the industrial strategy. That is the defining and guiding document for this nation’s economic future. We were very excited to publish it last month, and we are very excited about our ambitious plans for eight high-growth sectors, present across the Black Country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) mentioned. It is right to say that the Black Country will be at the heart of that industrial strategy.
The west midlands more broadly will be getting a range of targeted support, including £150 million through the creative places growth fund to support creative businesses, £30 million for research investment through the local innovation partnership fund, and a pilot partnership to drive the development of a strong and resilient electric vehicle supply chain. What a great connection the region has through that industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury also mentioned the advanced manufacturing sector plan. That is an important part of the effort focused on innovation, upskilling the workforce and attracting investment to create strong supply chains and high-quality jobs.
As I often say in these debates, the industrial strategy talks about our nation’s place in the world. It talks about the industries in which we shall lead and the jobs that we shall create. It is big numbers; it is big-picture—it is the whole nation. But everything happens somewhere; everything is local somewhere. Even the biggest global success story, whether Chubb or anything else, is local to somewhere. That is the exciting bit that we do in our Department, and that I do as Minister for local growth. My commitment today is for a real cross-Government effort and a connection, through ourselves, to local growth.
That is an approach that I pitched in November to the Wolverhampton youth forum. I have to say, if those young people are the future of the region, and if the creativity with which those young people were tackling local problems or the scrutiny to which they subjected my ideas is anything to go by, I believe that the Black Country has a very good future indeed. Our approach, as I said to them, is about investment, devolution, reform and partnership with regional local leaders.
I recognise much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury said, from my own community and region, about the lack of support traditionally from central Government. What we offer in lieu of that now is not charity. It is not, “You are x pounds below the national average, so here are those pounds back to you.” It is about starting a new partnership and a theory of change that says, “We believe that the ideas, innovation and creativity exist in the Black Country and its leaders already; they exist in the west midlands and its leaders already.” It is the job of the Government to back that with power and resources to make sure that they are able to drive that forwards. As part of the spending review, we announced a number of things that I think will make good on that.
Before I discuss the spending review, I want to address local government finances; because for all the exciting things that we are doing, there is nothing more important than repairing local government finances. I cannot accept the shadow Minister’s characterisation of how we came to be in this situation. I think when he meets the people who have created it, he will be really furious. I give him a clue: they are not far away from him when he sits with his party colleagues.
We have a chance to make this right. We made significant commitments in the autumn Budget and the spending review, and there is now the fair funding review. I encourage hon. Members to take part in that. We are building on that, as we did at the spending review, with a new local growth fund and mayoral recyclable growth fund for specific mayoral regions in the north and the midlands, which identifies areas with productivity gaps and gives them the resources to close them; a £240 million growth mission fund to support directly job creation and economic regeneration of local communities; and our really exciting commitment to local growth plans, which will guide economic vision and foster productivity across mayoral strategic authorities. Yesterday, perfectly timed for this debate, the Mayor of the West Midlands became very the first to publish their growth plan as a strategic authority and set out their 10-year vision. Our commitment is to work with them to make that a reality.
Everything that happens, happens somewhere locally. I want the people of the Black Country to feel devolution not just in powers that go to a regional mayor across the west midlands, but in their towns and villages. When they say that they want to take back control of their future, we should give them the chance to do that. I am really proud to be leading efforts in our Department on the plan for neighbourhoods. We are in our first wave of that, with £1.5 billion of funding to 75 communities across the UK to help tackle deprivation and turbocharge growth. For the Black Country, that includes Dudley, Bilston, Darlaston, Smethwick—and Bedworth, although that is slightly outside the boundaries. Importantly, local people will be in the driving seat for how that funding is spent, with independently-chaired neighbourhood boards made up of residents, businesses and local leaders helping to decide what projects get funding. That will drive three goals: thriving places, stronger communities and taking back control over a 10-year period.
There is more to come, as was set out at the spending review. I note the timely submission that my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury made on behalf of her community. I can say only this: the criteria will be objective and fully transparent, because I know I will suddenly have a lot of friends and a lot of enemies on that day. Other lists may exist, but I would take them for indicative, rather than definitive, purposes, and ours will be coming shortly.
Before I finish, I want to address two important issues that came up in the debate. The first is housing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury said, there are 21,000 people on the waiting list. Those people, and all communities in the Black Country, must have housing. That is why we have pulled together our comprehensive investment strategy to help us deliver the target of 1.5 million homes in this Parliament. I am pleased that the Mayor himself has committed to the biggest social housing programme the west midlands has seen. As part of the investment, the combined authority is building the Friar Park urban village, which is one of the largest brownfield developments going. Those are really good signs of what is going on.
The shadow Minister mentioned transport, and I completely agreed with his point. As it is the end of the parliamentary year, I thank the shadow Minister for his characteristically excellent contributions. He is such a good shadow Minister that, as it seems it is reshuffle day on the Opposition Benches, I hope he will be shadowing a different Department from mine. I know that he will take that in the spirit in which it is intended, because it is not his company that I do not wish for. I echo his point about transport, which is why we were proud that in June, the Chancellor announced £2.4 billion being made available to the West Midlands combined authority for transport across the region, including in and around the Black Country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge said, it is great to see spades already in the ground on the £295 million West Midlands Metro extension to Brierley Hill, meaning faster and more reliable transport connections between Birmingham and the Black Country.
To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury for securing the debate, and all hon. Members for their excellent contributions. Black Country day is about pride in our past and in the real things that make us who we are as a nation, but it is also about confidence in our future. From what we have heard today and see in the Black Country, I think we have an awful lot to be confident about. I look forward to working in that partnership with colleagues from across the House and their constituents.
(3 days, 23 hours ago)
Commons ChamberI am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this debate and for setting such a beautiful tone at the start of his speech. He speaks with enormous power as a parent of a child with cerebral palsy who requires full-time care, and also as someone who has a very long record—before his time in this place—of working with local parent groups and national organisations such as Scope and the Changing Places campaign. I know that there will be people watching this debate who relate strongly to the experience he talked about, and the experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) talked about. By bringing those people into this debate, he will have given them such a sense of peace. He did so with such power, and I pay tribute to him for that. His message, which I double underline, is that campaigning works, and I wish to show that, as a Government, we are bringing that spirit to bear as well, because this is such an important issue.
I am proud to have been a long-standing supporter of the Changing Places toilet campaign—long before my time in this Parliament. I have never officially been the toilets Minister, but I have spoken it into existence by telling anyone who will listen what I think. It is a simple truth that access to toilets—Changing Places in this case, and standard public facilities—is about dignity, independence, inclusion and ensuring that everyone, regardless of their needs, can fully participate in their community. No one, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, should ever get the message—explicitly or implicitly—that they are not welcome in their own community.
We know that for many people, especially those with complex needs or health conditions, the lack of appropriate toilet provision can be the deciding factor in whether they leave the House, visit the town centre or spend time with friends and family in their community. Without suitable facilities, what should be a normal day out can become a source of stress, exclusion and even risk, and we do not want that for anybody in our communities. That was the spirit not only of my hon. Friend’s speech, but of all the contributions from our colleagues.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has done remarkable work through the £30.5 million Changing Places toilet programme. I have in the past recognised the work of the previous Prime Minister in this space, and I would like to do so again. These facilities provide the equipment, the space and the security needed by more than 250,000 people across the UK—people for whom standard accessible toilets are simply not suitable for their needs.
The fund has supported the installation of 483 new facilities across 220 local authority areas, and has been a jumping-off point for best practice guidance, mandatory technical design training to local authorities and operational training. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said about where that has fallen short. We note that and we will make sure that we are communicating as best we can to make sure that, where these valued facilities have been installed, they are accessible, because the people who work in those spaces can help in the appropriate way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford was right that investment has been targeted to address gaps where provision is limited or non-existent, particularly in rural towns and coastal communities. It is important to recognise the vital role that transport plays in supporting independence and inclusion, so it must overlap with this agenda. Again, I acknowledge the important work of the Department for Transport, which has made available more than £2.5 million of funding to install Changing Places toilets at motorway service areas and railway stations across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) recognises the well-loved Keele services, but I know that there are many others across the country. Changing Places facilities make it easier for disabled people and their families to travel however and wherever they want and to be confident that their needs will be met. We have heard a bit about how the facilities are made available, and I think that tool is really important.
The Government’s inclusive transport strategy commits us to improving accessibility and ensuring equal access to the transport network for disabled people by 2030. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford has made a very important suggestion about how that could be improved with a single integrated app. I would be keen to meet him to talk further about that, and I assure him that the same goes for my colleagues in the Department for Transport.
The Minister is talking about the importance of a single integrated app that would bring together accessible toilet facilities and transport. Does he agree that we need this across the whole of the UK so that my constituents in Fife and constituents in Scotland can travel across the UK? We are, after all, one country, and we need these facilities to be integrated and open to all our constituents. Will he join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) on his amazing campaigning on issues like this?
On the second question, I absolutely will. My hon. Friend’s contribution to this debate was outstanding, as is his wider work. On the first point, as we begin summer recess, a great number of colleagues will be crossing national borders within the UK—in my case to west Wales, but others will be going to Scotland. It is important that people know where facilities are and that we have integration. I am always keen to work with my counterparts in the devolved Governments, and I certainly would be keen to work with them on this issue.
My hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Sarah Russell), for Carlisle (Ms Minns) and for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), and all of us to some degree, have talked about a lack of provision in our communities, notwithstanding that there are now 2,600 Changing Places toilets. I hope to give a degree of succour, given the very important change that was made by the previous Government, which I want to recognise. The important change in building regulations in January 2021 meant that new large public buildings, from shopping centres and arts venues to motorway services and sports stadiums, have to have these toilets in them. I can give confidence to colleagues that as developments take place, they will naturally get these facilities.
That is really good news and a very important sign. It shows that although things such as building regulations might sound esoteric, if done thoughtfully and to reflect the lived experience of our communities, they can significantly improve quality of life for people across the country. That change will be coming.
That is fantastic, but could the Minister please think about how we can address this issue for those of us with predominantly rural communities that have smaller towns that are unlikely to have very large buildings?
I will take up that point in the same spirit. The intent of the original programme was to try to fill in the gaps, but clearly from my hon. Friend’s contribution there is more to do, so I will reflect on that and talk with colleagues.
These changes do not happen by accident, so I want to recognise the tireless campaigning of individuals, charities such as Muscular Dystrophy UK, and local authorities, which have been progressive in this space. I would like to personally thank a very good friend of mine in Nottingham, Martin Jackaman, who was at the very heart of this campaign at the beginning. It was he who introduced me to the importance of this issue was when I was a young portfolio holder on my council nearly 15 years ago. The action of such individuals has meant that progress has been made and that we can be confident of more progress to come.
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is quite a large amount of ignorance among people who do not need to use these facilities, and that it is incumbent on all of us in this House, our councillor colleagues and others to raise awareness so that people do not just walk on by in towns, not realising the needs of others?
It is so important that in our naturally busy lives we all do not cut corners, whether by parking in places or using toilets that are not designed for us. We must understand that, when we do so, what may seem a pretty harmless—I suspect it is thoughtless—act could have a profound impact on an individual who needs those spaces that affects not only their day but whether in future they will be willing to venture into that amenity. I do not think anybody would want to have that impact. We must all reflect on the impacts we have and, therefore, on how we might mitigate them in the future and stop these things from happening.
This has been an important debate. As we can see from the number of colleagues in the Chamber, we could have done with much longer—there is certainly much more I would like to have said on public toilets—but I know that we will have such opportunities in the future. The progress that has been made so far is a result of really heroic individuals, campaigners and charities, and has happened because people have shared what are often some of the worst experiences of their and their families’ lives. We are better for their willingness to do so. I want them to hear me say from the Dispatch Box that, yes, we want them to keep campaigning and fighting—that is what we will all do—and that in us they have a Government who understand the issues they are talking about and want to be their partner in improving them.
Question put and agreed to.
(4 days, 23 hours ago)
Written StatementsThe Minister for Faith, Communities and Resettlement, my noble Friend Lord Khan, has today made the following statement:
In April the Government announced a new fund to provide a comprehensive service to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and to support victims. The establishment of the fund will contribute to the Government’s commitment to creating safer streets as part of the plan for change, with addressing the rise of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate playing a crucial part in building safer, stronger and more cohesive communities for all.
The grant competition opened on 7 April and closed on 18 May. We received a number of strong applications from organisations that share the Government’s enthusiasm and impatience for tackling anti-Muslim hatred.
We have now concluded the competition process, and I am pleased to announce that we have appointed the British Muslim Trust as our new Government-funded partner.
The British Muslim Trust will establish a multi-channel helpline for reporting anti-Muslim hate crimes and incidents, undertake deep outreach into grassroots and Muslim communities, conduct research to better understand Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred, and deliver training and public awareness campaigns to shift perceptions of British Muslims. The British Muslim Trust plans to mobilise and launch its service by the autumn.
The Government will continue to work with communities to confront all kinds of racial and religious hatred, to create a more tolerant and understanding society for everyone.
[HCWS872]
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsOn 2 December 2024, this Government published our remediation acceleration plan, setting out our approach to accelerating the remediation of residential buildings with unsafe cladding in England and improving the experience of affected residents.
Today we are publishing an update to that plan, setting out key progress and introducing new measures to achieve the plan’s three objectives:
fix buildings faster—so that those buildings already known to us can be made safe at pace;
identify all 11 metres plus residential buildings with unsafe cladding—so that every building at risk is found and fixed; and
support residents—so that people affected by unsafe cladding are treated fairly and compassionately throughout the process.
Through this work we will overcome the barriers of cladding remediation so that residents can be safe, and feel safe, in their homes.
The plan is an essential part of this Government’s ambition to deliver a safe, sustainable built environment that meets residents’ needs. It complements our broader housing goals, including the delivery of 1.5 million high-quality homes over this Parliament. The recent spending review laid the foundations for the largest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. However, tackling legacy safety issues in our existing stock remains a vital priority. This update ensures that those challenges remain front and centre.
Fixing buildings faster
The plan’s first objective is to accelerate the pace of cladding remediation for those buildings already known to be affected. Since December we have made considerable progress in strengthening enforcement, streamlining delivery and working with the sector to meet stretch targets. To build on this momentum, we are introducing a range of further measures.
Working in partnership with the social sector, we have published a new joint plan between the Government, social landlords and regulators, enshrining 22 commitments that, alongside new funding, will shave years off remediation timelines. At least 110 social landlords have already signed up to the joint plan. Those signatories collectively account for over 75% of buildings known to require remediation. There is no time to waste, and we will implement our equal access policy with immediate effect. We have today changed the rules of the cladding safety scheme to give social landlords the same access to Government remediation funding as private landlords, underpinned by this Government’s new investment of over £1 billion.
We will also bring forward a Remediation Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows, which will focus on accelerating the remediation of historical unsafe cladding and protecting leaseholders in the process. That includes creating certainty about which buildings need remediation and who is responsible for remediating them and making obligations for assessing and completing remediation clearer through the legal duty to remediate, with severe consequences for non-compliance. We intend to introduce a backstop for the Government to bring an end to the building safety crisis; and giving residents greater control in situations of acute harm where landlords have neglected their responsibilities.
We have also been working collaboratively with mayoral strategic authorities who are developing and delivering local remediation acceleration plans. We have provided over £5 million to support these plans in 2025-26.
To support the join-up of our remediation work, we are also establishing a national remediation system—a single dataset covering information on all relevant residential buildings over 11 metres. The system will improve efficiency by allowing information sharing among regulators, delivery partners and local authorities.
Identifying all 11 metres plus residential buildings with unsafe cladding
To fix all 11 metres plus residential buildings with unsafe cladding, we must first ensure that every building at risk has been identified and reviewed. In December, we estimated that between 4,000 and 7,000 buildings requiring remediation had not yet been identified. Through improved data, we have now narrowed this estimate to between 500 and 3,400 buildings with unsafe cladding left to bring into a remediation programme.
We are on track to identify the vast majority of buildings requiring remediation by the end of this year, thanks to the continued development of our national remediation system, regional investigations and proactive support from delivery partners. Where buildings require further investigation because external, visual indicators are insufficient to determine if remediation is required, we are approaching landlords to review fire risk assessments and provide support, ensuring that these buildings are either remediated or ruled out.
Supporting residents
Leaseholders should not bear the burden of remediating fire safety cladding defects that they did not cause. Our approach is guided by a commitment to fairness, transparency and compassion.
To ensure that cladding remediation funding is driven by risk, rather than an arbitrary height requirement, we will provide funding in those exceptional cases where multi-occupied residential buildings under 11 metres have life-critical fire safety risks from cladding and do not have an alternative route to funding.
One of the most difficult situations that a resident can find themselves in is a decant—where a residential building is deemed unfit for occupation and residents must leave their homes until they are made safe. We will put in place legislation to ensure that the vast majority of decants are avoided through prompt intervention or, where decants are necessary, residents can return to their homes as quickly and safely as possible.
We will deliver a long-term, sustainable approach to the waking watch replacement fund, with new funding committed to install alarm systems and help keep residents safely in their homes while their buildings await remediation, and to protect leaseholders from unnecessary costs.
We will outline the information that residents should receive during remediation. This will draw on existing guidance from the Health and Safety Executive to support residents in understanding their rights, what to expect and how to raise concerns if they believe something is unsafe. Strengthening accountability and improving delivery standards will ensure that residents are placed at the heart of building safety.
This update reflects a co-ordinated national effort, led by the Department and delivered in partnership with metro mayors, national and local regulators, and industry. Our goal is clear: to remove all barriers to remediation in order to get buildings fixed faster and allow residents to feel safe in their homes.
[HCWS849]
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberIn 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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
(2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsThe 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]
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsThe 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]
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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?
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.
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
If neighbourhood plans are as important as the Minister says, why are the Government withdrawing funding?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsAll 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]