Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Young]

I will ensure that the Housing Minister is able to meet my right hon. Friend.

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

16. What assessment he has made of the reliability of information on associated infrastructure provided to buyers by housing developers.

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

It is absolutely vital that buyers have correct, up-to-date and accurate material information on their purchase before they make a decision to buy a home.

[Andrew Selous]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. He will know that promotional documents put out by major house builders such as Barratt Homes, Taylor Wimpey, David Wilson Homes and so on to prospective purchasers on large-scale housing estates commit absolutely to the building of health infrastructure, which very often does not turn up. Just allocating a piece of land simply is not good enough. Can he please make sure that we do not mislead purchasers and that, frankly, the doctors’ surgery is the first building to be built on many of these new estates?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point, and I am grateful for the time he has spent with me in my first couple of months in the job to highlight this issue, to articulate the problems and to show the real-life examples of where there is an issue. He is such a good champion of this issue for his constituency. A substantial amount of infrastructure has been built all across the country, but where there are gaps it is hugely frustrating, and we will continue to work with assiduous Members such as my hon. Friend to try to close them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. I hope that the House will note that my hon. Friend, who fights incredibly hard for his principles and for Stoke-on-Trent, is taking a typically statesmanlike approach in putting his constituents first. Come the next general election, people should remember that he is someone whose big heart reflects their good values.

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

Road safety is put at risk by roads that are not adopted, because speed limits cannot be enforced and often they do not get gritted. There are serious worries that people will get injured. What more can the Department do to ensure that key service roads on big, new housing estates get adopted more quickly?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to ensure that developers live up to their responsibilities to provide appropriate infrastructure. It has been the case that a number of fleecehold—for want of a better word—developments have unadopted roads, where children are at risk.

Christmas, Christianity and Communities

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate, Dame Maria. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for introducing it so well, and so authentically; I think we all sensed that. I am grateful to him for giving us a reason to come here to remember the reason for the season.

It is worth pausing at the beginning of this debate. As we head back to our constituencies today, and as our constituents gather with their families to celebrate Christmas, we should have a thought for the 360 million Christians around the world who live under fairly serious forms of persecution, and who will not be able to celebrate Christmas as freely and as easily as we can, if at all. People in North Korea probably will not be able to celebrate Christmas at all, for example. Three of the 11 countries where there is extreme persecution of Christians are Commonwealth members: Nigeria, Pakistan and India. We should perhaps say a little more about that.

A couple of weeks ago, I was on a call with the spokesman for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), and we had the privilege of listening to the parish priest of Bethlehem, where Christians will just have prayer this Christmas, because their hearts are broken over what is happening to their Palestinian Christian brothers and sisters in Gaza. We should think of the people in the Latin Church in the north of Gaza, who are running out of food and being sniped at as they try to go to the toilet. We hope and pray that rescue will come to them shortly. We should never take for granted our freedom to worship freely in this country; it is a precious gift.

In the United Kingdom in 2023, we live in a world beset by anxiety and fear, so when I read Luke 2:10—

“Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people”—

I see so much of the answer to the problems, issues and anxieties that face our constituents. That message of the angels has never been needed more in our country than today, when a third of people live alone.

People everywhere are desperately searching for love, community and purpose. At Christmas, and quietly week by week, churches provide that relationship of love through Jesus Christ; a sense of community with fellow believers; and purpose, as regards why we are here, and what we were born for. I am told that carol services are packed, particularly with young people. Someone said yesterday that as many as half of Londoners will turn up to a carol service. There is a hunger to learn more about our faith, and for that love, purpose and sense of community.

At its best, church is family. Christianity is, at heart, a relationship of love with the Lord Jesus. The best definition of community I ever heard was from the former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:

“A place where they know who you are and where they miss you when you are not there.”

If you go to a church where that is not the case, it is possibly not the right church for you—or maybe, if you are in a larger church, you need to join a home group.

I have the privilege of speaking in this House on behalf of the Church of England. There are many churches up and down the country of all denominations doing fantastic work, but it would be remiss of me not to put on record that the Church of England has a presence in every community in England; it has 16,000 churches, 42 cathedrals and 31,000 social action projects, and educates 1 million children every day in church schools. That is an amazing footprint. I am grateful for those parish priests and workers who quietly, week by week, day by day, bring the light of Christ at Christmas and throughout the year.

I end by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley for bringing us here this morning for an important debate that goes to the heart of so many issues in our country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

No, that is not the case. It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Gentleman. This Government are taking the delivery of affordable housing across the whole country incredibly seriously. That is why more than 243,000 affordable homes have been provided in rural local authorities in England, such as those represented by Members across this House, between April 2010 and March 2022. We must get the planning system right. We have a mission to level up the country, which includes building affordable homes in rural areas, as well as in urban areas.

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

16. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on provision of primary care capacity for large-scale new housing developments.

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

New housing needs to be supported by the right infrastructure, including primary care services. The new infrastructure levy that we are introducing through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will be able to provide funding for local infrastructure and so contribute towards addressing that vital issue.

[Andrew Selous]

I am running out of ways to describe how unbelievably awful the current system is, which is failing to allocate sufficient increased general practice capacity when we build tens of thousands of new homes. Do the Government recognise the urgency of this matter? If we are going to build housing, people must be able to see a doctor when they move into their new homes.

[Rachel Maclean]

Yes, the Government do recognise the urgency of this issue, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it. He is right to be consistent about it, because, as we recognise, access to healthcare is one of the most important concerns—if not the most important concern —of local communities when new housing is planned. Our community infrastructure levy places much firmer requirements on local planning to engage with healthcare provision in the local community, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss this matter further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

It is the case that at the last spending review, we secured a significant increase in local government spending, and as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire pointed out when we had the debate on the local government finance settlement, authorities such as that of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) have received the funding they need in order to deliver the services on which constituents rely.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that when we build thousands of new homes, we need to do as well at providing extra general practice capacity as we do at providing extra primary school places? If he does, what will he do about it?

[Michael Gove]

I do, and our new infrastructure levy in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is designed to do just that. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and with the new Minister of State for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch, in order to make sure that the infrastructure levy delivers as we both would want.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dehenna Davison]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question; she is a fantastic champion for levelling up in her community. Questions on VAT would be a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury, but we are of course committed to reviewing incentives around brownfield development and will announce further details on the scope of that review in due course.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

On 28 December, we announced an historic devolution deal between the Government and the local authorities of Northumberland, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Gateshead, South Tyneside, Sunderland and County Durham. A new Mayor for the north-east will ensure that local priorities are at the heart of decision making and will provide £1.4 billion to level up the area over the next 30 years. We have now struck deals with eight of the 11 areas identified for devolution in the levelling up White Paper, putting more power in the hands of local leaders representing over 7 million people in England.

[Andrew Selous]

Will the Government remedy the completely unacceptable situation whereby thousands of homes are built in areas such as mine—and in Rugby and elsewhere—without adequate general practice capacity? What will the Government do to put that right in areas where that has happened?

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience on this issue in his area, as well as having raised it nationally. I was very pleased to discuss it with him and the relevant Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care today. It is important that all the necessary infrastructure for a housing development is built, whether in relation to education or GP surgeries. The infrastructure levy will facilitate that even further—[Interruption.]—but it is important that we work together.

Unadopted Roads: New Housing Estates

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate on unadopted roads and the lack of facilities for new housing estates.

I know that new housing can be a controversial issue. Some of the biggest issues in my constituency relate to general practice capacity and police numbers not increasing sufficiently in line with the building of thousands of new homes. I want everyone to be well housed in well-designed communities with, crucially, adequate local facilities. I am sure we would all agree that safe roads to drive on, speed restrictions, traffic calming, street lights, pedestrian crossings, parking enforcement, and litter, dog and grit bins, and regular collections from them, are all things we have a right to expect in England and Wales in 2022. Asking for them is not asking the earth.

Yet the current position is that many hundreds of thousands of our constituents do not have those basic amenities, which those of us who are lucky enough to live on adopted roads take for granted. As I will argue, the lack of street lights, parking enforcement, pedestrian crossings, pavements, and speeding restrictions make living extremely dangerous at times for those residents. Unadopted roads are subject to surface drainage issues, leading to a higher risk of flooding, and mortgage lenders sometimes withdraw funds from prospective buyers if a road is not adopted.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

This is such an important debate. My hon. Friend highlights the issue of drainage. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the situation at Knights Meadow in North Baddesley in my constituency? The drainage there has been designed outside the parameters of adoptability by the drainage authority, so there is no chance of the highway above the drain being adopted either. We are left in the horrendous situation whereby the homeowners can expect no solution to it, while having to cope in the meantime with sub-standard facilities, roads and drains.

[Andrew Selous]

On the last visit I did with Anglian Water in my constituency, I learned that water companies are not actually statutory consultees in new planning applications. The good local authorities talk to the water companies, but in my view, the companies should be statutory consultees, to avoid exactly the issue that my right hon. Friend raises.

On the safety issue, are we going to let the situation continue like this until—God forbid—a child gets killed? Road safety is a real issue, as I will illustrate. The Fletcher Road estate in south Gloucestershire is not adopted, and the traffic regulation order to bring in a 20 mph zone will not come in until the entire estate is complete, which could take 10 years. Last year, a child was seriously injured on the estate, and the accident safety report concluded that if the road had been properly constructed, and had speed humps, surfacing and a 20 mph limit, it would have been safe.

The Levelling Up Secretary has quite rightly used his righteous anger to make massive progress on dealing with the cladding issue and, most recently, with the mould issue. My request to him is to make it a hat-trick on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people who are paying full council tax without basic facilities, many of which are designed to keep them safe. During the American war of independence, the cry went up, “No taxation without representation.” Why is it that we require residents on new estates to pay full council tax while receiving very much less than full council services? Many residents are now paying twice for identical services. On the Castle Mead estate in Wiltshire, residents will pay the equivalent of band D town council tax to a management company to use the open spaces around their homes, while still paying full council tax. That does not seem fair or right.

The last full survey of unadopted roads was conducted by the Department for Transport in 1972, when it was estimated that there were 40,000 unadopted roads in England and Wales, covering some 4,000 miles of road. It is very concerning we do not have figures for the situation today.

Let me take the Minister on a tour around my constituency. On Theedway in Leighton Buzzard, three street lights do not work—all close to an assisted living residence where many people have mobility issues—and there is no parking enforcement or road signage. All that is dangerous. In nearby Copia Crescent, one street light is on 24/7 while the other is broken. Local residents do not know which developer to go to for these issues to be fixed. In nearby Grebe Drive, Goldfinch Road and Fraserfields Way, residents report dangerous speeding, no traffic calming, no speed enforcement and churned up verges. One householder is having difficulty selling his property because his road is not adopted, so we are making people’s main asset more illiquid and reducing the ease with which they can move. Properties in Clay Furlong and Claridge Close were sold in 2003—when the first residents moved in—but nearly 20 years later, the roads have still not been adopted. That is simply not good enough.

In Dunstable, the residents of Harvey Road have never had street lighting, and they have to navigate round potholes—that situation has gone on since at least 1961. A resident of a new estate being built at Tilling Green in Dunstable tells me that she has no street lights and that parking on junctions is extremely dangerous. She has had no reply from her management company about those issues. A constituent from the new Eleanor Gardens development in Dunstable tells me that Taylor Wimpey told her that it had handed the estate over to the council, while Central Bedfordshire Council said that it was unable to help because the handover had not happened. Homeowners—with all their pride and excitement about their new homes—have been left in the lurch again, not knowing where to turn to have multiple problems sorted out.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not intend to intervene all afternoon. My hon. Friend makes an important point about homeowners not knowing where to go. They assume they should go to the council, but then find that the road is unadopted. They then assume they should go to the developer, but then find that a management company was set up and that, in many cases—such as for several estates in my constituency—it simply does not respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

In a typically insightful intervention, my right hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. If she is able to stay until the end of my speech, I will outline a number of potential solutions that I am excited about. There are things we can do that do not require money and may not even require legislation, and which would make a difference. I am not just outlining the problems; I am coming up with solutions, which is what we in this place are here to do, is it not?

Bidwell West—a huge new area in my constituency—has all those issues. They were first brought to my attention by a young couple from Centurion Way who are proud of their new home and want to be proud of the area they live in. They came to see me in my surgery in June to ask for litter bins. The adoption manager from Linden Homes would not even agree to speak to me when I raised the issue with the company. The leader of Central Bedfordshire Council told me that some developers have in the past worked with the council to install and empty litter bins before the roads are adopted. If some developers can do that, why can’t all of them?

A mother from Bidwell West tells me that her nine-year-old daughter is scared to walk to school because there are no pedestrian crossings. There have already been numerous head-on crashes on her new estate because of the lack of signage and speed restrictions. There are now large potholes appearing in some of the roads, and the lack of lighting is dangerous for dog walkers and another pedestrians on these dark winter evenings.

A resident from the Kyngshouton estate, north of Houghton Regis, tells me that Persimmon indicated to purchasers that the roads would be adopted by the local authority, but five years later, that has not happened. The residents pay for council tax and a service charge to a management company where the majority of directors are Persimmon staff, and despite the residents having been told that there would be a director election process, that has not been forthcoming. Why should the residents have to pay twice? They also believe they could do a better job running the management company than the Persimmon directors. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) has told me that at Holyoakes Field First School there are no road markings and no parking near the school, resulting in children and parents having to walk on the road, which is extremely dangerous.

I am particularly indebted to the briefing I have received for this debate from the Reverend Tim Haines, the pioneer community worker for Bidwell West. He points out that on new developments it is not clear who is responsible for what—the very point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) has just made—and that at the very least we need a stakeholders working group, comprising builders, housing associations, landowners, the local authority and residents. Every developer with a responsibility for street lights and so on should have a named, available point of contact for residents and council officers to contact.

I am grateful to the Local Government Association, the National Association of Local Councils and the Home Builders Federation for the briefing they have provided to me for this debate. I am optimistic that a better future can be created, but it will need the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to take a lead and establish best practice requirements with penalties for failure to comply.

Some local authorities report that developers start building a road before entering into the section 38 agreement or try to vary the terms of the local highway authority’s section 38 agreement. In other cases, the developers may build a road very slowly and not finish it or not build the road up to the local highway authority standards. The sewerage authority may also take time to adopt the sewers under the new road. The road may be finished, but there could be outstanding construction defects that the developer needs to fix, such as defective street lights, potholes, overgrown verges or broken drain covers.

The Home Builders Federation notes the unacceptable inconsistency between local highway authorities, with inspection fees varying between 5% and 15% of the bond value and the length of time between a technical submission and technical approval for both section 278 and section 38 agreements varying between one week and one year. The Home Builders Federation requests that costs imposed on it by local highway authorities be reasonable and consistent, and that the process for technical approval and legal engrossment be simple, effective, rapid, trackable and measurable—all very reasonable demands. It asks that councils do not seek betterment schemes over and above the engrossed legal agreement, so preventing adoption as a result.

I want the Department to take a lead on this issue and deliver significant improvement in how we provide roads on new estates with the associated facilities that are critical to prevent our constituents from being exposed to danger. I say again that that danger could lead to loss of life.

In Wales, a good practice guide has been adopted, to which local highway authorities and house building federations have signed up. At the pre-application stage, the highway authority is involved. If five or more properties are served by public highways, the highway authority serves an advance payments code notice on the developer within six weeks of building approval. Once the notice has been served, works cannot commence without a bond being in place, equivalent to the total cost of construction of roads as estimated by the highway authority. During this period, a section 38 agreement can be negotiated, or ideally it is done even sooner.

My plea to the Minister is to take the learning and evaluation of what has happened in Wales and to build on that for England, and to take the sensible points made by local authorities and the Home Builders Federation to get agreed and enforceable national standards, and to do so with speed and determination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

My right hon. Friend makes a very valuable point, and I would also be very keen to speak to her on this issue, because she clearly has the same issues in her constituency, as we all do, and is very interested in this point. We do raise many issues with house builders, and I can add this to the list to raise, because it is important that the guidance is followed and that we get solutions.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire suggested that England needs more national standards. As he knows, under the Highways Act 1980, section 38 agreements allow new roads built by developers to become public highways, with the cost of maintenance falling to the public purse. It is certainly possible for local highways authorities to adopt streets for which they are not currently responsible, but this is usually agreed at local level, not national level, between the developer and the council. It is true that councils can use section 38 to step in if a developer fails to keep its promises regarding a new road or street. The legislation already gives highways authorities the power to do that, but there is no legal obligation on them to do so, so ultimately it is a question for the relevant council. I understand that the Department for Transport’s position is that it does not intervene in operational issues, and that it does not have powers to make statutory or impose national standards. That said, I do think it is important we continue to discuss this issue to ascertain what more can be done.

It is worth saying that the local highways authority cannot of course always adopt a road on a new development each and every time, not least because that may not be what residents themselves want. The road may also be incomplete or not built to the right standard, and the drainage may not yet have been adopted by the appropriate body. For whatever reason, when a road is not adopted by the local highway, liability for maintenance automatically falls to those who own the properties facing the road. What that looks like may vary depending on the housing development, but by and large estate rent charges are the main way in which residents pick up the tab for a road’s maintenance. The problem arises when homeowners are unexpectedly slapped with bills to maintain roads they did not even know they were responsible for and, worse, when they challenge the estate rent charges, they find that they have limited rights to do anything about it.

[Andrew Selous]

I am aware that some unadopted roads go back decades and decades, but it does concern me that in a major new development on the east of Leighton Buzzard in my constituency, where residents moved in only in 2003, the roads are still not adopted. It is 20 years later, and I really think it is entirely reasonable that the people buying those homes would think that these issues would have been sorted out by the developer with the agreement of the local authority. Does the Minister get the importance of these issues not just dragging on and on, and the need for quite swift resolution?

[Lucy Frazer]

I do totally understand the point. As a local MP, I have worked with developers and streets to get to the position where roads are adopted so that the local authority can take over. I totally understand the point my hon. Friend is making, and I look forward to the conversations we will have about how we can address this further.

Coming back to the estate rent charges, we and the Government recognise that this is a real concern for homeowners, and we are actually tackling it. We intend to legislate to give freeholders on private and mixed-tenure estates the equivalent rights of leaseholders, which means they will be able to directly challenge unfair estate rent charges. For the first time, they will be able to apply to the first-tier tribunal to appoint a new manager who can better handle the estate rent charges and is more responsive to what residents want, because as my hon. Friend said in his speech, they sometimes think they can do this better than the developers or agencies themselves.

My hon. Friend also talked about his concerns when developers fail to build roads to adoptable standards. When that happens, we want councils to take the toughest possible enforcement action. This is where the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is currently going through this House, has a pivotal role to play in strengthening the hand of councils. Our reforms will remove the current four-year time limit that applies to some breaches; in future, it will be 10 years for all breaches of planning control. We are also doubling the maximum period of temporary stop notices from 28 to 56 days, and at the same time we are focused on closing existing loopholes that let developers obtain planning permission after a breach has occurred.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Andrew Selous Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The reason for the infrastructure levy is that it ensures a local authority can set, as a fixed percentage of the land value uplift, a sum that it can use—we will consult on exactly what provisions there should be alongside that sum—to ensure that a fixed proportion of affordable housing can be created. The hon. Lady is quite right to say that there are some developers that plead viability to evade the obligations that they should properly discharge.

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

The Secretary of State will be aware that, at the moment, someone can build tens of thousands of houses but people wait years and years for increased general practice capacity. Those from the Rebuild Britain campaign whom I met this morning tell me that they believe that integrated care boards and trusts will be prevented from requesting section 106 money to mitigate the impact of new housing, and medical facilities are but one of 10 types of infrastructure that there is no duty on local authorities to provide. Is he really confident that this will be better under the current Bill?

[Michael Gove]

I am absolutely confident it will be better, but my hon. Friend makes a very important point, which is that section 106 agreements—sometimes they work, and in many cases they do not—do need to be improved, and the proposals for our new infrastructure levy should do precisely that. However, the way in which the infrastructure levy will operate is something on which we will consult to ensure that it covers not just the physical infrastructure required but, as he quite rightly points out, the provision of critical healthcare.

--- Later in debate ---

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

This morning I learned the very sad news that a 51-year-old constituent, a father of four children, had received a diagnosis of terminal cancer, which was spotted far too late. His GP surgery is in the town of Leighton Buzzard, the third largest town in Bedfordshire and the biggest in my constituency, which has grown massively in size and where all the GP surgeries are somewhat swamped, to put it mildly, by the residents who have recently come into the town. The new Clipstone Brook surgery is not coming to pass, and we have no indication yet of whether there will be a health and wellbeing hub in the town.

I use that tragic story—and all our hearts and sympathies, I know, go out to my constituent’s wife and four children—to illustrate the point that when we build tens of thousands of new homes, we need to be every bit as rigorous in making sure that the increased general practice capacity is put in at the same time as those houses go up as we are when it comes to the provision of school places.

On Tuesday, I celebrated being an MP in this House for 21 years. In that time, I have rarely found a child without a school place to go to. We generally do public administration quite well in this country. Sometimes we run ourselves down—I think that is a fact—but we can do well for school places. We plan well, and when we build new houses, we make sure that, in the main, there are primary schools for those children to move into. Why is it, then, that we have such difficulty with making sure that the increased general practice capacity is in place? We can do better, and for the sake of my 51-year-old constituent, we have to do better.

What people generally do not understand is that NHS England provides hardly any additional funding for health infrastructure to cater for the impact of new housing. There is £105 million in total for the whole of England, £90 million of which is ringfenced for technology for GPs, leaving jut £15 million. That is around £2,600 per GP practice. What are they going to do with that? We really have to do better. Local authorities have no statutory requirement to provide health services—quite understandably, I think most of us would say. If we look at page 294 of the Bill, in schedule 11, we see that medical facilities are just one of 10 types of infrastructure that the infrastructure levy is supposed to provide. All the other nine are extremely worthy, and I do not want to argue against a single one of them in favour of medical facilities, but I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister, who I know is taking this issue seriously, that we have to get it right.

This is what my constituents care about more than anything else: the ability to see a doctor when they need to do so. When we build thousands and thousands of new homes, we really have to do better. The advice I have had from some very experienced health planning lawyers and from the Rebuild General Practice campaign is that there are fears that the Bill might make the situation worse, and that it will certainly not really fix the problem, so I say to the Minister, whom I have met privately on this issue: please, please take this away and, for the sake of all our constituents, get this right.

General Practice: Large Housing Developments

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered general practice capacity for large-scale housing developments.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this important debate and to colleagues who have come along this morning and who clearly have the same issues in their constituencies.

Every one of our constituents hugely values the ability to get a timely appointment, without too much hassle, at their local surgery. General practice is the front door of the NHS and all GPs, practice nurses, clinical pharmacists and the whole primary care team do an amazing job under enormous pressure. I express my profound gratitude to them.

In parts of England a third more GP appointments were delivered between September and November 2021 compared to the same period in 2019, yet many of our constituents regularly tell us of the difficulties they have getting a timely appointment at their surgery. GPs and primary care staff are exercised about the strain on the system. In addition, there is considerable variability in the numbers of GPs, practice nurses and people in direct patient care roles per 10,000 registered patients. I think there should be a recommendation as to how many patients a GP should have. I accept that different populations in different parts of the country will have different demands, so a number of indicative levels would be required. We have requirements in relation to the number of children who can be in a class, so why is it different for patients in GP practices?

I have analysed the numbers of GPs, practice nurses and direct patient care staff per 10,000 registered patients in each of the three primary care networks that cover my constituency and, with one exception for GPs in one primary care network, the whole of my constituency has fewer GPs, practice nurses and direct patient care staff per 10,000 patients than the averages for England and for the east of England. From the plans I have seen from my clinical commissioning group, the projected increases in primary care staff will not be enough to bring my constituency up to the average, and I am told that no figures for future GP recruitment are available from the CCG because GP recruitment is left to individual practices.

As a country, we know that we need to build more homes. and I want everyone to be decently housed. Too many people still do not have a decent home. As elected representatives, we also know that new housing development is often vigorously opposed by existing residents. That opposition has some merit to it if the existing services in that area are already under strain and are going to be put under even greater strain.

A constituent wrote to me on Saturday to say:

“Leighton Buzzard has expanded massively in the last 20 years, however the investment in infrastructure and facilities has in no way kept pace with this and access to healthcare is inadequate leaving the GP surgeries under great pressure despite the best efforts. I dread to think what the situation will be like when the massive building programme is completed.”

That is spot on. Everyone pays taxes, and those new residents will make their contribution, so it is essential and only fair that the services in an area expand as the population rises to meet that growth.

I am told that in Norwich North, the seat of my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, who is not here to speak for herself, wave 4b CCG funding will provide an extension for one local surgery, but that will accommodate only a small fraction of the population increase and no provision is being offered for another GP practice or through section 106 money.

I understand that in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), who, as Leader of the House, is a member of the Cabinet, 6,000 new homes are planned for Hucknall, a town where the GPs are already oversubscribed and there is no commitment to a new Cavell health centre to meet the needs of existing and new residents.

I have rarely found children without a school place to go to. However we plan for additional school capacity when massive new housing schemes come along, the system seems to work reasonably well. The classrooms get built and the teachers employed to welcome those new children and to give them a good-quality education. That is not my experience with general practice capacity, however. I represent an area that is due to have about 14,000 new homes built and that already has, before those new residents arrive, below-average numbers of GPs and primary care staff.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend made an important point about the planning on education places. What we need to see from Government and local authorities alike is a much more robust approach to developers, to ensure that they are paying for what is required and that they are not leaving it to the NHS and local communities pick up the bill. We need to see that strong lead from Ministers, for them to be standing up for communities and not for developers.

[Andrew Selous]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend and I defer to his expertise on education. I would add that an element of retrospection is needed, because many of those new housing estates have already been rolled out in our constituencies. The new infrastructure levy cannot be just going forward; there is an immediate deficit that we need to remedy.

The system is broken, and that is the reason I have been campaigning on the issue and have called this debate. Contributions from section 106 funding or from the community infrastructure levy often go to provide other facilities rather than for health. The guidance states:

“It is helpful if the Director of Public Health is consulted on any planning applications (including at the pre-application stage) that are likely to have a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of the local population”.

I do not think it is “helpful”—it is absolutely essential. It should be a requirement that leads to a clear outcome of additional ring-fenced health funding to employ and accommodate the necessary GPs and practice nurses that the area’s population requires.

I have good support in my request. When I put that point to the Prime Minister on 5 January this year, he replied:

“Yes...my hon. Friend…is completely right: we cannot build new homes without putting in the infrastructure to go with it.”—[Official Report, 5 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 20.]

I can quote no higher authority, Minister.

My argument is that no new infrastructure is more important than looking after the health of the existing and new population in an area. At the moment, the system is fragmented and uncertain, in that we might be lucky and be funded through section 106 money or we might be lucky and get it from the community infrastructure levy. Again, we might be lucky and get what is needed from the housing infrastructure fund. If we are fortunate, the local authority might come to the rescue, or it could be that Treasury funding to the Department of Health and Social Care will do the job. My CCG tells me, however, that capital funding from the Treasury for new general practice capacity appears too late to be of any use in making a sensible forward plan, and disappears equally quickly.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that while developers sometimes offer to create new premises for additional GP practice, that does not resolve the problem? The shortage is of people, of qualified GPs, so even if there are brand-new premises, without the doctors to see the patients, the problem he is talking about is not solved.

[Andrew Selous]

This is the benefit of having former members of the Cabinet in a debate such as this: they know what they are talking about. My right hon. Friend is completely right. We are talking about capital and ongoing revenue funding. Those new residents come with a stream of tax revenue—their council tax, their income tax and the tax from their businesses, which they will pay—so we are not asking for anything unreasonable; it is about an equitable allocation given where people live, when there are big increases in the local population.

In my local authority, there were proposals to build four health hubs. The original commitment was that those would be built by 31 March 2020, then by 2024, and we have one being built, another progressing, and complete silence on the other two. Initially, the funding was due to come from the primary care infrastructure fund, then the primary care transformation fund, with the CCG and the local authority due to make contributions at various points—but none of those routes has led to the delivery of two much-needed health hubs in my constituency.

I propose that there should be guaranteed primary care health funding for each 1,000 new homes, allocated at the time planning permission is granted and delivered as the new residents arrive, although smaller developments must also be catered for.

The current capitation figures, based on the Office for National Statistics population figures, always lag. Therefore, the infrastructure always comes too late, leaving unacceptable strain on local primary care services. We will, in the end, pay for the primary care services needed but, instead of always doing it too late, let us get ahead of the curve and stop the anxiety and upset that our constituents and primary care staff experience as a result.

I observe that the process is often shrouded in secrecy, with very little engagement with local Members of Parliament and councillors. We are the ones who feel the anger of our residents when these facilities arrive too late, but there is limited local accountability from those taking the decisions, and a confused and uncertain national funding process. We could learn from the way education funding is allocated to accommodate significant population growth. I recommend that the Prime Minister urgently convene a Cabinet Sub-Committee between the Treasury, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to deal with the issue once and for all.

I repeat the point I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). I understand that the new infrastructure levy may come to our rescue, but if it just looks forward and does not deal with these vast new housing estates—14,000 homes being built in my constituency and many thousands in the constituencies of colleagues here—we will have let down our constituents. Our country generally does public administration well; we are better than this and can fix it. I implore the Minister to go back to his Secretary of State to have a focused, cross-Government effort, led by the Prime Minister, to get this right once and for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

Let me start by offering my huge thanks to all colleagues who have taken the time and trouble to come here and be incredibly articulate on behalf of their communities, because this is clearly a common problem. We have heard from Members representing areas from Keighley to Cornwall and all points in between, and I know that colleagues from the north-west, Oxfordshire and many other places were not able to be here to tell the stories of their constituencies.

I have been reflecting on what the Minister has said. When he described the current system, I heard the word “should” a lot, but in moving to the new system of the infrastructure levy, that word must change to “must”. In far too many cases, “should” simply has not resulted in delivery. At the heart of it, I think we can do this according to the numbers. A GP and primary care team should be able to expect a safe limit based on the population in their area. A younger, healthier population could have a larger limit, but a smaller patient load may be required in an area with an older, more disadvantaged population.

If we agree that there is a safe number of patients for a primary care team of GPs and practice staff, we can simply do it on the numbers and raise up those affected. When many more houses are built, we must have the additional capacity to serve those extra residents coming to the area. I hope that the infrastructure levy will provide everything we need, but when the Minister has that conversation with the Department of Health and Social Care, could he please invite the Treasury to that meeting as well? Quite frankly, if the infrastructure levy does not do the full job, we will have to go back to the Treasury. We will pay for this eventually, but we need to do it in a timely manner.

My final point is incredibly important. What the Minister is about to bring in must not just be future-looking. We all now have massive estates that are under-provisioned. He cannot just look to the future; he must deal with the current problem, which the existing system has allowed to get into a terrible state.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered general practice capacity for large-scale housing developments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Will the Secretary of State take steps to make sure that when we build very large new housing developments, it is easy for new residents to get into their local surgery or new health centre?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We absolutely need to make sure that easy access to infrastructure and public services is part of significant housing developments, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that that is true in South West Bedfordshire and elsewhere.

Levelling Up: East of England

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on bringing this much-needed debate. Sometimes gratitude is in slightly short supply where the Government are concerned, so I start with a thanks before I come on to my shopping list, because the town of Houghton Regis in my constituency received £19.9 million for a new community wellbeing centre hub, which I am very pleased about. It is much needed. We have a new one in Dunstable, and the local authority just committed to a new one in Leighton Buzzard, so this completes the piece. I am extremely grateful.

An enormous number of new homes are being built in my area. Around 14,000 are going up—about 8,000 north of Houghton Regis and around 6,000 to the east of Leighton Buzzard. My particular concern, which I have raised repeatedly and will go on raising until we get a solution, is the need for infrastructure to come in at the same time as the new houses are built. I see a few nods—in fact, quite a lot—around the Chamber, because I think we all agree that that should be the case. I believe other European nations sometimes manage to do this a little bit better than we do. I think we all agree that that should happen, and I think every Government have been committed to its happening, but it has not happened under previous Governments and is not quite yet happening in the way it needs to.

I will just put a few figures from August 2021 on the record relating to the number of GPs per 10,000 registered patients in my area. In the three primary care networks in south Bedfordshire it is only 4.5. In the east of England it is 5.3, and in England as a whole it is 5.9. We are starting at a disadvantage and we have these 14,000 new houses coming on top. There is a serious amount of levelling up and catching up to do to make sure that all those residents can get to a doctor when they need to. The same is true for direct patient care roles. The full-time equivalent per 10,000 registered patients in the three primary care networks in my area, south Bedfordshire, is 1.6. For the east of England it is 2.9, and for England as a whole it is 2.3. South Bedfordshire is already at the bottom of the league in terms of the number of GPs and direct patient care roles per 10,000 patients, and all these new houses are coming. We really must do better.

If there is one thing that I want my hon. Friend the Minister to take back to his Department, it is that when the levelling-up White Paper comes out, if we do not have a solution to ensure that general practice capacity is installed at the same time as the new homes come up, I, for one, will not be happy. I will keep on raising this issue until we get a solution. We can do better as a country; we are a bright, capable country, it is within our power to do it and we need to do it.

In my last 40 seconds I will raise police funding, where we also need levelling up. Sometimes, I think that the Home Office views Bedfordshire as a sort of corn-chewing county out in the sticks somewhere. However, I am afraid that we are quite busy, in policing terms. We are the fourth-highest, nationally, for county lines. When Operation Venetic came out—the deciphering of the EncroChat criminal communications system—there were 26 packages for Bedfordshire, only 11 for Hertfordshire and none for Cambridgeshire. We are a busy police county, and we are surviving, I am afraid, on one-off grants. It all goes back to damping in 2004. We must amend the national funding formula to treat Bedfordshire police fairly.

National Minimum Wage Enforcement

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this debate.

I am very proud to support a Government who have committed to the national living wage being equivalent to two thirds of the median income by 2024, in addition to reducing the age for accessing the national living wage to 23 this month and to 21 by April 2024. We want work to be worth while and an effective route out of poverty, so it is important that everyone is entitled to the legal minimum wage.

Unfortunately, the combined impact of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, along with the provisions of the Care Act 2014 and the enforcement role of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, have all been completely ineffective in enforcing the law for one of my constituents, a carer who is owed £62,961 of unpaid wages below the minimum wage. Four other carers were in the same position. Who knows how many others across the United Kingdom are in the same position. I will use this case to demonstrate how the law has not worked effectively. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on the individual case, but I would like him to set out the plans the Government have to remedy the flaws in the current legislation, so that an effective remedy can be provided to people such as my constituent where now there is none.

My constituent—I shall call her Mrs Wright; it is not her real name—provided care for seven years to a disabled woman, whom I shall call Mrs Edwards, which is also not her real name. The wages to pay Mrs Wright were provided by Luton Borough Council and paid by a local charity into the account of the person being cared for. Checks were then made by Luton Borough Council to make sure that the money provided was paid over to the carer. Section 33 of the Care Act 2014 enables care to be devolved to the person being cared for, who enters into a contract of employment with her carer.

After seven years of good and faithful work caring for Mrs Edwards, the local charity that had received funding from Luton Borough Council sent the carer a schedule showing that, throughout the entire seven-year period, she had been underpaid a total of nearly £63,000. The local charity also paid the premium for an insurance policy to cover employers’ liability and legal expenses and costs should the carer have cause to sue the person being cared for—her employer, Mrs Edwards.

Mrs Wright, the carer, was never provided with the contract of employment by her employer. Both Luton Borough Council and the local charity say that they are not liable for this massive underpayment of wages because the contract of employment is between the carer and the person being cared for, and has nothing to do with either of them. The legal expenses insurer did not even bother to reply, which is completely shameful. There is no point in suing the person being cared for—the employer—because she lives in a rented flat, has no other assets and all her income comes from state benefits. As Mrs Wright’s solicitor said to me,

“this is a wrong with no remedy.”

The aim of this debate—so that the Minister and I are not wasting our time—is to make sure that a remedy is provided to Mrs Wright and other carers in her position, so that the law requiring the payment of the minimum wage applies to them as well as to everyone else.

This matter was first brought to my attention in the summer of 2018. I did my research and found out that everything I had been told about the inability to secure the payment of wages legally due was true. I contacted Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to try to get enforcement action. HMRC said in the letter back to me that it was

“determined that everyone who is entitled to the national minimum wage should receive it.”

That turned out to be a hollow phrase, because no effective enforcement action can be taken against an employer who has no assets and, indeed, never had any in the first place. Luton Borough Council wrote back to me to say:

“any issue regarding alleged historical underpayment of minimum wage will be a matter for the person being cared for and the carer to resolve.”

I should point out that there is no “alleged” underpayment, because the agency employed by Luton Borough Council to check wages paid against wages legally required to be paid came up with a schedule showing the underpayment of nearly £63,000.

Having hit a brick wall with HMRC and Luton Borough Council, which was the local authority responsible for providing the person being cared for with funds to pay for the care provided, I went to see the previous Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility, who was very sympathetic and agreed that there was a problem. At that meeting, I was told that local authorities did indeed have a responsibility for direct payments, in that they must be satisfied that personal budget holders are capable of paying the minimum wage, and the local authority should have undertaken a six-month review, after which it should have reviewed the making of direct payment no later than every 12 months.

The Minister’s predecessor then helpfully wrote to the chief executive of Luton Borough Council, pointing out that it should have had an “effective monitoring process” of the direct payments to ensure that the individual fulfils their responsibilities as an employer and that, following the six-month review, the local authority should have reviewed the making of direct payment no later than every 12 months. In its reply, Luton Borough Council said that the carer had been paid a fixed weekly rate based on unmeasured work hours, when in fact the carer had very clear hours that she was expected to work.

The Minister’s predecessor also wrote to the Minister for Care at the Department of Health and Social Care to explain the problem. The previous Minister for Care wrote back to say that Luton Borough Council should have been satisfied that the person being cared for was capable of managing direct payments by herself or with the help of the charity asked to provide that help. As I said, a local charity used by Luton Borough Council has produced a schedule showing an underpayment of wages throughout the entire seven-year period amounting to nearly £63,000.

I have raised this matter before on the Floor of the House with the Leader of the House, who said:

“I am clear that careworkers provide essential support to some of the most vulnerable members of society, and it is essential that they are paid in accordance with the law, including the national minimum wage, for the work they do. This is a responsibility of local authorities, which should ensure that personal budgets are sufficient to deliver a person’s care needs, including making sure that they cover the cost of wages, and local authorities have a duty to monitor how personal budgets are spent. However, the Department of Health and Social Care will take this up with the local authority and ask it to investigate what sounds like a very serious and concerning case.”—[Official Report, 25 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 1450.]

I have also had a meeting with the Minister who is replying tonight.

In the 2019 Queen’s Speech, the Government announced that they would legislate to create a single enforcement body in an employment Bill. That Bill would give us the opportunity to remedy the very serious loophole that I have outlined. We should also remember the payment of premiums for an insurance policy to cover the employer’s liability and legal expenses and costs, which has been of no assistance whatsoever in this case.

The Minister will agree with me, I am sure, about the importance of people receiving the wages they are legally entitled to. We share a commitment to increasing the minimum wage to make it always worth while to go out to work and to lift more people out of poverty. I urge the Minister to make sure that the single enforcement body in the employment Bill will be up to the task of providing effective remedy in situations such as the one that I have described, and that it has retrospective power to help diligent, hard-working and highly compassionate carers such as my constituent, Mrs Wright.