Housing Associations: Charges

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I very much appreciate having been granted this debate tonight. I reassure the Minister that I come here not in anger, not in sorrow, but with deep, deep concern at the charges being levied on my constituents, specifically by the Aster Group, which is the largest housing association operating in my constituency. I am not alone in my concern, and I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) is facing similar, although not identical, issues, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who is here this evening. However, it does seem as though Romsey and Southampton North is particularly impacted, and I will go on to explain why and how.

First, I draw the Minister’s attention to a salient piece of correspondence: a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dated 4 September and addressed to the chief executive of the Aster Group. He concludes it with the phrase:

“I will be taking a personal interest in how your organisation continues to deliver its responsibilities”.

I come here in the spirit of wishing to help my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his mission to keep a very close eye on how Aster is delivering.

I also, of course, welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), to his new role. He knows how pleased I am to see him on the Front Bench responding to this debate. I know that he is familiar with the Aster Group, which operates in his constituency as well as my own. I seem to recall an Adjournment debate in 2017 in this Chamber. Like him, I recognise the huge importance of housing associations and the phenomenal work they do to support many of our constituents, especially the most vulnerable ones.

To give a short history, in 2000 Test Valley Borough Council transferred ownership of its housing stock to Testway Housing, which was later bought out by Aster. By and large, that deal has worked well. There are always challenges, but nothing that even begins to compare with the current situation, which I first raised in the House several years ago, sadly to no avail.

In 2000, when the sewage treatment plants were handed over from Test Valley Borough Council to Testway Housing as part of the large-scale voluntary transfer of housing stock, those sewage treatment plants were in full working order, with the requisite environmental permits. Now, none of them is in full working order and none of them has the correct permits. As is tradition, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for securing the debate. She outlined a situation where housing associations become bigger by absorbing smaller ones. In my constituency, in my experience, when housing associations become bigger, their accountability to their tenants and residents decreases. Is the right hon. Lady saying that in this case, the bigger the housing association becomes, the less responsible it becomes?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He is right to highlight how some housing associations have grown and grown. Somebody came to my constituency surgery last week to raise an issue about a different housing association, Adbury, whose ambition is to become one of the largest housing associations in the country. There is a problem with scale, because as these organisations become more remote from the residents they seek to serve and cover an ever wider geography, the individual contact and understanding of the needs of individuals can sometimes be lost.

Aster is a large housing association, with many thousands of properties and customers, and an annual profit in excess of £50 million. I do not begrudge people making a profit, but I resent it when it comes at the cost of decent relationships between Aster, as the provider of local sewage treatment plants, and residents who have worked hard and saved to be able to purchase their former housing association home. In my constituency and others, they are now living under the tyranny of a housing association that seeks to recoup the costs of the housing association’s failure to maintain and repair sewage treatment plants in the villages across Test Valley that do not benefit from mains drainage.

We all know that 95% of properties in the UK are connected to mains drainage, but my plea is on behalf of the people who live in the 5% of properties that are not, some of whom in my constituency are seriously financially challenged and plunged into enormous debt, just because they cannot be connected to the mains.

I know that some in the Department were concerned that the debate would be about sewage, and therefore required a response from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I reassure the Minister that the debate is not about the sewage itself, but the principle of whether it is okay to charge some residents as much as £480 per month for their waste water disposal. Aster recognises that those charges are unaffordable, because their own tenants pay about £600 a year for their sewage disposal. That figure is not means-tested in any way.

Aster has accepted that their tenants cannot begin to afford charges of many hundreds of pounds a month, but it does not accept that just because someone has been able to buy their former council house, they may not be wealthy. It does not recognise that many will be pensioners, single people with only one household income or in low paid work, particularly in very rural areas, where much of the economy still revolves around agriculture.

In East and West Tytherley, Awbridge, Ampfield, East Dean and Nether Wallop—I will not reel off every single village that is affected—the sewage treatment plants, owned and maintained by Aster, simply have not been maintained. That has resulted in long-standing and expensive tankering operations and poorly maintained plants, at the very end of their life, that in some instances discharge foul drainage into ditches, causing Aster to come to the attention—not in a good way—of not just the Secretary of State, but also the Environment Agency.

That brings us to the cost. Some residents have been receiving bills of over £400 a month and are now being invoiced £3,500 as their “share” of a replacement plant. I invite the Minister to cast his mind back just 12 months, when the Government quite rightly recognised that average energy bills of £2,500 per year were unaffordable, and stepped in to help. Some of my constituents have been receiving sewerage charges that are twice that. If my maths is correct, I can identify one household where the bill will be £5,760 this year, and that is before they are further billed for the maintenance of the plant.

I am very specifically not asking the Minister to step in to pay those bills, but I am asking for his advice as to how hon. and right hon. Members can best hold Aster to account, bring the weight of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to bear, and highlight to the Secretary of State that a company in which he is already taking a close personal interest, is now seeking to rinse my constituents for Aster’s failures to maintain its own facilities.

I have in my possession a report dating back some eight years plus, which identified all the maintenance and dilapidation issues of these small sewage treatment plants. And what have we seen since 2015? We have seen not a programme of repairs and replacement, but a programme of tankering, recharged to the residents who had bought their former council houses, and with remaining Aster tenants having their “share” of this cost capped. As Aster told both me and Councillor Nick Adams-King, who has been tireless in his pursuit of this issue, it recognised that the charges were unaffordable. Aster’s response when challenged on this is that it is entitled to do this. This has not yet been tested in law, but I fear that it may come to that point—if only there were a resident who had not had to spend all their cash on Aster’s ever spiralling demands.

Aster itself has had no dilapidation or sinking fund, so it has made no provision to replace these plants, which might reasonably have been expected after some 40-odd years of service to be coming to the end of their lives. Aster had not planned and it had not prepared. I know that because, back in 2011, this issue was first highlighted to me by the residents of Strawberry Lane in Up Somborne, who came to me at that time complaining of sewerage bills in the region of £100 per month levied by Aster. Little did we know at the time that Strawberry Lane would be just the first in a long list.

I also wish to pay tribute to the former borough councillor, Tony Ward, who negotiated a solution in Up Somborne for each property to have an individual septic tank installed. Although it was expensive in capital costs for installation, over the past 10 years those residents will have been paying only a fraction of the cost of what an ongoing relationship with Aster would have cost them.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for the information that he has provided from his constituency. In Dorset, we see a very similar picture to Hampshire, with Aster interpreting deeds to mean that homeowners must pay for the maintenance of Aster infrastructure, whereas homeowners had understood that sewerage charges would be levied in line with those charged by Wessex Water for a similar service. Since the housing stock was transferred there, homeowners had only ever been charged for the service that they used, but are now being asked for an additional sum, running into thousands and thousands of pounds for replacement and upgraded infrastructure. There they can point to the poor value Aster appears to be receiving as part of its maintenance work, with one provider charging it £18,000 for the installation of a handrail and the cleaning of a single tank. That is a very similar picture to the massive price of the tankering contract in Hampshire, where tankers are coming in from Kent to pump away waste from facilities—often several times a day. There is one example of a £1,250 charge to Aster to empty 4,000 litres from a sewage treatment plant that is not working, when a local supplier had quoted £175. That gives an idea of the scale of the waste, when we know that these tankers are operating many times a day at different locations. Local waste management companies are simply aghast at the sums being charged and the distances being travelled, when smaller companies could have dealt with a short-term crisis much more cost effectively.

That is the real crux of this: it is not a short-term crisis; it is a long-term pattern of a company that has historically made huge profits simply by not reinvesting in maintenance and upgrading systems to meet 21st-century requirements. When the crisis hits, it is forced to adopt expensive short-term solutions and then longer-term upgrades, the burden of which is passed on to those who have bought their own homes and are therefore deemed by Aster to be wealthy enough to afford it. The only comfort that Aster is prepared to give is that it will not pursue people immediately for those charges; it will simply levy a charge on the house to recover the money when they die.

There are two case studies that I will specifically highlight. Brent lives in East Dean. He bought his house in 2020 with his wife, and they now have two small children. They were told by Aster when they bought the house relatively recently that the sewage treatment plant was in working order and that their estimated cost per year would not exceed £80. He is now faced with charges of £480 per month. That is more than his mortgage. He is trapped in a home that he cannot sell, because who would buy a house with that sort of sewerage charge? Elizabeth is a pensioner from Cowleas Cottages in Awbridge. Aster is charging her an amount for sewerage that is equivalent to two thirds of her pension, leaving her just one third of her monthly income for all her other bills, food and day-to-day living costs.

I have some questions for the Minister, as you might expect, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want his advice on how we can best hold Aster to account. The housing ombudsman cannot help because these are no longer Aster tenants; they are now homeowners. Ofwat is not interested because Aster is not a registered search provider. I wonder whether that should be part of the picture going forward. The Consumer Council for Water says that, because it is a contractual relationship, it cannot become involved. At every turn we have been stumped, which is what brings me here to ask the Secretary of State, via tonight’s Minister, whether he can please use his existing concern about Aster and help us to find a solution.

New Housing: Swift Bricks

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers]

I very much agree.

So what is not to like? Swift bricks are clean and noise-free, the public like them and they could help to protect four endangered species. But what about the cost, and what do the developers say? Swift bricks are incredibly low-cost. They are already produced by multiple manufacturers, and home builders have the opportunity to shop around. Prices online start from as little as £25—although I do not know how much my right hon. Friend paid for his—which is pennies to large housing developers. Swift bricks represent one of the most cost-effective conservation measures and help developers to comply with their responsibilities in the Environment Act 2021, creating biodiversity gain.

After speaking to developers, and representatives from the Home Builders Federation, it is clear that they take their responsibilities for the environment seriously. They welcome the proposals and see them as giving clarity and direction and as a meaningful way of complying with the Environment Act. In fact, there are many examples of house builders being proactive and putting swift bricks in place without being compelled to do so.

In their response to the petition, the Government said they would not be legislating for a nationwide approach, because in

“some high density schemes the provision of ‘swift bricks’, for instance, might be inappropriate”.

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

I just wanted to ask a specific question about that. If it might not be appropriate—if a brick might not be inhabited by a swift—what is the harm? Does it matter? Of course it does not; the brick just lies there empty and uninhabited. I fail to see that that is doing any damage at all.

[Matt Vickers]

That is a very good point, and it is one that Guy Anderson, from the RSPB’s migrant recovery programme, has made in response to the Government. He has said that he cannot see any reason why swift bricks would be inappropriate in any development in the UK. He says:

“there may be some buildings where the design...makes it...less likely...to ever be used by swifts...however, even if...not used by swifts...red-listed house sparrows, red-listed starlings or red-listed house martins may use them”.

I would therefore urge the Government to look again at the policy and at what can be done to either enforce or encourage the delivery of more swift bricks in homes across the country.

To end on a brighter note, there are now many examples of swift bricks being used. One of the largest installations of swift bricks has taken place across the Duchy of Cornwall estate. The “Big Duchy Bird Box Survey” showed that, across all of the newly installed swift bricks from 2015 onwards, almost half had been used.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point about new developments, as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers). However, could swift bricks not also be a planning requirement for extensions? In a cost of living crisis, many people might not be able to afford to move, and they might need to enlarge their homes, so if a new brick is going in, there is no difficulty in making it a swift one.

[Caroline Lucas]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady. With a bit of imagination, we could really make a difference, and hers is a very good suggestion.

I urge Ministers to act with urgency and, for example, to bring forward an amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to make this law. That step has been endorsed by many Members of all parties, the director of the Conservative Environment Network and former Government Ministers. It is not often that one points to such cross-party support for any kind of proposal, and this proposal has that cross-party support and could be easily put in place.

Let me say a few words about Brighton, because as hon. Members would expect, it is leading the way on this issue, as on so many others. Since June 2020, any building over 5 metres is mandated to include swift bricks, and the county ecologist has recommended specific requirements for major developments. That follows the redevelopment of the former site of Brighton General Hospital, which was home to the second largest colony of swifts in the south of England. The swifts had been using old and decaying ventilator bricks and other gaps in the walls as nesting holes. Of course, any repairs to the holes would have rendered them unsuitable for the swifts, so swift boxes were retrofitted into the building. They matched the existing brickwork and conformed to British brick standards, which meant that the boxes and bricks could seamlessly fit into the design of the building. The project is now being seen as a flagship example of swift provision. I pay tribute to conservationists in Brighton and Hove, including Heather Ball, who have worked so hard to make our city more swift-friendly. Local swift groups have been inspecting new developments to find out whether they adhere to the rules.

I want to take a moment to challenge some of the arguments in the Government’s response to the petition. I very much hope that they will change their response. They say that although they welcome action by developers to provide swift bricks, they consider this

“a matter for local authorities depending upon the specific circumstances of each site”,

and that they therefore “will not be legislating” to mandate specific types of infrastructure. That is a massive wasted opportunity. It would take such a small thing to mandate the measure nationally, and we know that not enough local authorities have done it and that it would take a long time for each one to come to a local plan and start to mandate it. This measure would have huge support and could be driven appropriately from the centre. Instead, the Government have pointed to planning conditions that local authorities can impose and the introduction of new local nature recovery strategies. Although some local authorities mention swift bricks in their guidance for local plans, only a handful have made it a condition for new housing, and although local recovery strategies may identify swift bricks as important, there is currently no legal link into the planning system.

A legal duty to include swift bricks in all new developments is essential to deliver the new level of action that is required to save our swifts. As the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) mentioned, there are also ways that we could extend that duty to extensions and other moments when people do work on their homes. The hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) has already quoted the RSPB, which quite clearly demolished the idea that swift bricks can sometimes be inappropriate, so I hope that the Government will not keep saying that. Instead, let us see a change on this as soon as possible.

Time is not on our side. As I have said time and again in this House, the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, with a staggering 15% of species now at risk of extinction. Swift bricks and swift boxes are important, but they are far from enough. Nature is under assault from every angle—from our intensive agricultural system, which douses our fields in poison, to ancient woodlands being destroyed to make way for roads and railways, and water companies incessantly pumping sewage into our waterways. If we are to have any chance of changing that terrifying picture, we must start by quite literally making a home for nature—by living once again with a species that has long been our closest neighbour.

If the swift goes, it will be its own tragedy, but it will also be symbolic of so much else. The author, naturalist and campaigner Mark Cocker has just written a wonderful book about swifts, which I warmly commend, called “One Midsummer’s Day”. He writes:

“The declines are profoundly troubling but they are important in an additional sense. They are part of the birds’ deeper capacity to serve as symbols for all life. For this in truth is a deeply troubled planet…Until now we have seemed unwilling to educate ourselves, or to feel in our deepest core, that life is a single unitary whole: that all parts are fused inextricably within a self-sustaining, mutually giving, mutually dependent, live fabric”.

If we were truly to live as if that were true, we would know that taking care of nature is a way of taking care of ourselves and all the other species with which we are so privileged to share this one precious planet.

Mandating the use of swift bricks in new buildings is one of the smallest and simplest steps we could take, but it would symbolise so much more. It would be that first step, but it would also be a symbol of our recognition of deeper interconnectedness. It is a step I hope that the Government take, and I hope that all Government Members who have spoken so strongly about the importance of swift bricks will carry that passion into future debates about things like industrialised agriculture, which is sadly destroying precious nature and is such a force for ill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as always, Sir Edward. I congratulate Hannah on bringing this petition forward, and I thank the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) for introducing the debate. It was a real privilege to be asked by the RSPB, quite a long time ago now, to be the species champion for the swift, but I am clearly not the only one—this whole room is full of champions for the swift. I think I rather lucked out in being chosen ahead of them. We have heard so much about what an amazing bird it is, so I will not go over that ground again.

Soon after taking up the role of species champion, I went to visit Bristol Swifts and saw the dedication among these local groups. A couple had spent seven years trying to attract swifts to their homes. Having put in the bricks and played mating calls, they finally managed to get the swifts to come, and last year their swift boxes provided nests for 16 breeding pairs and 36 chicks. That is just in the one home.

There are many other amazing groups. Particularly over the past year or so, I have seen on Twitter how many there are in localities such as Rother, Hastings, Lewes and Sheffield.

[Caroline Nokes]

I apologise for intervening a lot, but it would be remiss of me not to congratulate Hampshire Swifts on its work. I opened a conference for it back in 2018, and it has contributed to the planning process and fed into the local plan review. Groups such as that are doing so much to push this issue; it just requires the Minister to push it over the line.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It certainly does. I was going to mention Hertford and Halesworth, and now I can say Hampshire too. Cambridge also has a group.

I pay particular tribute to Save Wolverton’s Swifts and Martins, which has a special place in my heart because it is run by my sister, who is in the Public Gallery. That shows the difference between us: I am always here talking about things, and she is actually out there doing things. That group has provided 170 new homes for swifts since 2020, and this year swifts have finally taken up home in her house.

Last year, because the heatwave made the bricks too hot, there was a real problem with fledglings trying to leave before they were ready to fly. All around the country, local groups rescued swifts; my sister cared for 17. I remember going down to Sidcup to pick up her daughter from university, and as the three of us sat outdoors at a Sri Lankan restaurant, there was a swift on the other chair being fed crickets—it had to be fed every hour to keep it alive. My sister did that while juggling three kids and working a full-time job.

An interesting fact is that a swift weighs the same as a Cadbury’s creme egg. Save Wolverton’s Swifts and Martins is making egg cosies to raise funds for swift groups. If anyone wants one, I am sure I can arrange that.

I also want to thank Milton Keynes Swifts, which works very closely with Save Wolverton’s Swifts and Martins. I thank Mike LeRoy for sending me a comprehensive briefing about the work that group is doing with developers and housing associations. It was particularly helpful on biodiversity net gain, which I will come to in a moment.

As we have heard, when a building is demolished or renovated, swifts lose their nests, and new buildings do not always offer the same nooks and crannies. That habitat loss is one of the reasons swifts are now red listed. They are a conservation concern, as their numbers fell by 62% between 1995 and 2021.

Other Members have explained effectively that swift bricks are very simple and easy to use. They blend into the building and do not affect insulation. That issue has been raised with me, particularly given the discussion at the moment about the need to retrofit homes, but the bricks will not have an impact on the energy efficiency programme. They are durable, low cost and do not require maintenance. Even if they do not attract swifts, they can be beneficial for other red-listed species such as house sparrows, starlings and house martins. Hibernating tortoiseshell butterflies and bees also use them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dehenna Davison]

Again, I appreciate that, and I will take it back to the Department following our debate.

In addition to the strategies I outlined, a range of cross-Government measures will support the needs of nature more widely in local planning, including mandatory biodiversity net gain, which sees most types of new development required to deliver improvements of 10% or more in biodiversity. Work is ongoing with DEFRA to finalise the regulations, but we are confident that that update to the planning process will have positive outcomes for biodiversity.

The hon. Member for Bristol East asked specifically about that issue. As she outlined, DEFRA has committed to keeping species features such as swift bricks and bat and bird boxes under review. It is also committed to updating its biodiversity metric every three to five years, which will provide further opportunities for change and innovations to be considered.

Another measure that is in place to support the needs of nature in local planning is the green infrastructure framework, published in January 2023. The framework helps local planning authorities and developers to meet the national planning policy framework requirements to consider green infrastructure in local plans and new developments. The framework’s “Green Infrastructure Planning and Design Guide” is a helpful resource, which already advocates using British Standard 42021, calling for integral nest boxes to be installed in new developments. Furthermore, the requirement to consider green infrastructure in local plans is embedded in the national model design code, which provides guidance for local planning authorities on setting clear design standards through design codes and already refers to the green infrastructure framework, reinforcing the importance of the measures it outlines.

As we consider the implementation of a national policy, we need to reflect on its practicalities and whether planning is the most appropriate mechanism to achieve the desired outcomes. There is no denying—it has not been denied in this Chamber—that the planning process can be confusing and outdated for users. That is why our Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is crucial to deliver changes to planning policy to address that complexity, including modernising it, increasing flexibility and regulating pre-application engagement with communities.

The changes that we want to make to the planning system will see a more consistent, streamlined and digitally enabled approach to the way planning applications are made. They will be proportionate to the scale and nature of the development proposed, to ensure faster and better decision making.

I must make it clear that the Government recognise the fact that many local planning authorities, as well as the wider planning sector, are facing capacity and capability challenges, which is why we have developed a programme of support, working with partners across the planning sector, to ensure that local planning authorities have the skills and capacity they need, both now and in the future. To that end, we are concerned that the introduction of mandatory conditions may impose an additional burden on all local planning authorities to enforce breaches of conditions. As legislators, we need to be mindful of the potential unintended consequences of introducing a national policy.

[Caroline Nokes]

The Minister will know that my constituency neighbour, our right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), shares a local authority with me. Test Valley Borough Council already requires a long list of specifications when a planning application is granted, including what type of brick and roofing material will be used and what the windows will look like. Mandating a standard brick per dwelling does not seem very complicated to me.

[Dehenna Davison]

I have heard my right hon. Friend loud and clear, but I hope she will recognise my wider point about not wanting to add unnecessary additional complexity to a service that already faces a great deal of it.

Consultations such as the one on the national planning policy framework in December 2022 are invaluable sources of information, as mentioned by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). We are currently analysing the responses to the consultation, which included answers about how national policy could be strengthened through small-scale nature interventions—for example, swift bricks—and a Government response will be provided in due course.

We also used the consultation as an opportunity to outline our commitment to a wider national planning policy review, which will align with the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill receiving Royal Assent, and will ensure that the planning system capitalises on all opportunities to support the environment, address climate change and, of course, level up the economy. In the review, we have already committed to exploring how we can incorporate nature into development through better planning for green infrastructure and nature-friendly buildings. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that we cannot pre-empt the findings of the review, so we would not want to introduce a national compulsory planning policy until it has been concluded, but we remain conscious of the plight of our swift population and the potential benefits that mandatory swift bricks could have.

Before I close, I reiterate that the Government are committed to protecting and enhancing our natural and local environment. Through our planning changes and cross-Government working, we are pursuing a fair and balanced approach to achieve better outcomes for biodiversity. Our policy interventions will empower local areas to adopt a targeted approach in reversing the decline of swifts, based on local opportunities. Local planning authorities have the power to adopt policies locally that protect species, and it is important that that is done in a holistic way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dehenna Davison]

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the case of her constituent. Sadly, I think all of us have seen examples like this, but it is particularly acute in rural communities. I represent a rural constituency so I have seen similar cases. A lot of work is going on right across Government to try to mitigate cost of living pressures, including cost of living payments and additional help with energy bills, but I am certainly willing to work with anyone across the House who can help us in that mission.

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

In many rural areas there is no mains drainage, and the cost of sewage disposal is adding to the rising cost of living. One housing association in Romsey and Southampton North is levying charges to homeowners of £300 per month, meaning that their sewage disposal charges are higher than their energy bills. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet me so that she can hear more about the specifics of that case and understand if there is anything the Government can do to help?

[Dehenna Davison]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this, and I will of course meet her to learn more and see what more we in Government can do to help support her constituents.

Unadopted Roads: New Housing Estates

Caroline Nokes 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 ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lucy Frazer)]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for so powerfully articulating his constituents’ and many other constituents’ concerns regarding unadopted roads. He talked about constituents who are often paying full council tax but are forced to live on private roads riddled with potholes and devoid of basic necessities such as streetlights, road signs or litter bins. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) also raised the matter of Knights Meadow, which is causing concerns. I believe we all can agree that, irrespective of whether a housing estate is old or new, no one should be forced to live on a street that is so poorly maintained that it negatively impacts their quality of life.

First, I will directly respond to the recommendations that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire has made, especially in relation to section 278 and section 38 agreements, as well as the guidance in Wales to which he referred. Then I would like to identify some of the steps that the Government are already taking to strengthen the enforcement powers of local authorities and to make sure that roads are properly maintained. Then I will address some of the broader points raised by my hon. Friend.

I take this opportunity to reassure my hon. Friend that I am committed to working with him and Members across this House to make sure that we can find the right solutions to the problems he has highlighted. I am not only happy to, but would be delighted to meet him and share the benefits of his research and expertise and to discuss this issue in more depth so that we can find the right answers to these questions.

Turning now to my hon. Friend’s recommendations, he mentioned that in Wales a good practice guide has been adopted by local highway authorities and house building federations. He noted that in 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.

In England, the Department for Transport has issued clear and simple guidance to councils to help them navigate some of the complexities surrounding new developments and the adoption, maintenance and upkeep of roads. They can use that guidance in those initial conversations with developers before a road is built, and long before they become major headaches for parties, not least homeowners themselves.

The Department for Transport also published an advice note in 2017 on road adoption and made some significant updates to it in August this year, with some useful advice on bonds and fees. I would be happy and keen to talk to my hon. Friend about how we can further improve on this work that the DFT has done.

[Caroline Nokes]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point about the guidance that the DFT has already published and given to major house builders. The point I want to make is that as in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), the developers in my constituency are major house builders. These are people who should have had this guidance over many years and who know how to build roads of an adoptable standard. Will my right hon. and learned Friend use the considerable heft of her Department to summon them in and suggest that they start using the guidance already available to them?

[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.

[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.

[Caroline Nokes]

May I just ask the Minister whether any of those powers will apply retrospectively, or is this just going forward? Will my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and I still be dealing with a 20-year-old case in his constituency and one that has certainly been rumbling on for 10 years in mine when the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill has passed?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am very happy to get back to my right hon. Friend, but I assume that in any event the maximum is 10 years for a breach of the planning controls.

[Caroline Nokes]

Very briefly on that specific point, we have existing problems, but my question is whether the new legislation will act retrospectively to tackle the existing problems, or is this only going to solve future problems that have not yet occurred in developments yet to be built?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am very happy to get back to my right hon. Friend on that specific point, but we do recognise that if developers flout the rules and breach conditions they will also run the risk of being hit with unlimited fines.

The status quo is that when a new development is granted planning permission, councils can use section 106 planning obligations to make sure developers build roads to an adoptable standard. It is important to stress that when residents have a complaint about the local planning and highways authority that has not been adequately resolved, they can also complain to the local government and social care ombudsman.

I want to finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North for securing and taking part in this debate. It is an important issue, and we in the Government do not underestimate for a second the misery that unadopted roads can inflict on our residents. Be in no doubt that we get it that poorly constructed, poorly maintained and poorly funded roads and street lights blight neighbourhoods, erode people’s pride in the place they live and, ultimately, can ruin lives. Where loopholes have been exploited, councils have been lacking enforcement powers and homebuyers have found themselves powerless to challenge unfair bills, we are already changing the law to put things right. I am very grateful for the constructive thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire on where there is further room for improvement, and I look forward to further conversations.

We are committed to working with councils, the housing industry and hon. Members from both sides of the House to raise the bar on the quality and safety of roads and streets in all developments, and to level up communities by ensuring that vital infrastructure and services are right there on the door step when they are needed. That is our ambition, and that is what we are determined to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 21 Evictions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is an interesting point. The vast majority of people in the private rented sector are happy with the shorter-term nature of rented accommodation. I wish the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, would not shake his head and would listen to what I say. There is a cohort of people who want to live in rented accommodation permanently. They want it as their family home. I absolutely agree that the Government should provide accommodation for those people. The Government should invest in this much more, and provide long-term, affordable rented accommodation and social rented accommodation. That is definitely the Government’s job where there is market failure.

I concede that there are market failures for people who want to live in permanent rented accommodation. I am not against the Government stepping in and ensuring that can happen. However, if they step in, tell the private rented sector to ensure that, and set out the rules that apply to someone who wants to make an investment in the sector, the reality is that we will get a reduction in investment in the private rented sector, which will mean a reduction in supply, which will make it more difficult for the tenants on whose behalf Members are speaking. That is the reality of the situation. So, yes: we should make greater public investment in long-term rental accommodation to deal with this issue. However, we should not tell landlords, who invest their private money in the private rented sector, that they have to let their property for life, which is what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton is considering.

If the hon. Gentleman wants the private rented sector to do that, a way of dealing with the issue would be to offer incentives for that. We could look at capital gains tax, for example; perhaps people who are willing to rent their property for a much longer period—for five or 10 years, or maybe even for life—could get beneficial capital gains tax treatment. Alternatively, we could reverse some of the changes we made in the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015, in which we restricted mortgage interest in the private rented sector; that was pretty damaging for lots of landlords in the sector. We could say to landlords, “We are no longer limiting the way you can deduct interest against your annual rental income, as long as you’re willing to rent your property out for longer, or for life, to give security of tenure to those kinds of tenants.”

I will conclude very shortly, Ms Nokes. The other unintended consequence of what the hon. Gentleman proposes is that private rented sector landlords will prioritise the best tenants. They will not take a risk because of concerns about non-payment of rent. You are going to disadvantage the people you seek to protect through the measures that the Government are planning and that the Opposition—

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Order. Not “you”—that would be me.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am ever so sorry. That is the first time I have done that in seven years in this place. What is being proposed will disadvantage the people the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, seeks to protect.

I am fully convinced the Government will push ahead with the proposals, and that the Opposition will double down on this if they ever get into Government. I am just saying that they should be careful what they wish for, because this would be very damaging for the people they seek to protect.

Future of Small Cities Following Covid-19

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

I will call Daniel Zeichner to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of small cities following the covid-19 outbreak.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. Let me start by saying that the pandemic clearly is not over—this debate is very much looking ahead. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a huge subject, about small cities in general. I have a particular interest in Cambridge, my own small city, and in the future of the community that I represent and in which I live.

There are many things that could be said on this topic. I am conscious that it is a short debate and there are other Members who want to make a contribution. I therefore offer a warning to any watchers or readers: be aware that this will be a very narrow account, dealing particularly with issues of work and innovation. There is much more to be said on a whole range of issues, such as housing, fairness, mental health, transport, environmental sustainability, and air and water quality, but for today only, I will just touch on many of those issues.

The stimulus for this debate is the report by Cambridge Ahead entitled, “A New Era for the Cambridge Economy”. I pay tribute to the many Cambridge thinkers who have started the ball rolling on this discussion as we think about the world beyond the pandemic. I will mention in particular Jane Paterson-Todd and her team, Metro Dynamics, who were the lead authors, and the chair, Dr David Cleevely—there were many others.

The report sits in a wider framework. I have long felt that our goal as leaders should be to make Cambridge the best small city in the world. For me, when we are seeking to understand what that might look like, the idea of one city fair for all must be at its heart—social justice is essential. I am delighted that that runs as a golden thread throughout the report.

That goal will inevitably be delivered through the work of local leaders. I will name just a few: Councillor Anna Smith, the city council leader; Councillor Katie Thornburrow on the local plan; and Dr Nik Johnson, the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. I have named some of my Labour colleagues, but I well appreciate the work of many others within and beyond local government. Future success will only be achieved in partnership; I look to the Government, and the Department in particular, to work with us to find constructive ways forward.

Let me turn to some lessons from the pandemic. A leitmotif for many of us was, “You’re on mute!”—I think many of us will remember that for years to come—but the report picked up on many more things. When it was launched a few weeks ago, I could not help noticing that it was picked up in the national media, by the Daily Mail and The Times, and it was almost as if the only issue was whether people should go back to the workplace—that is an ongoing conversation in Government, as I understand it.

However, those reports missed the core point of the report; frankly, the paradigm has shifted and the world has changed. The question is how to adapt and turn that change to our advantage. Let us be clear that for many workers in Cambridge and elsewhere, there is no choice. The street cleaners, the cabbies, the bus drivers, the hospitality workers, the cleaners, the health workers, the lab workers, the manufacturing workers and many people in schools and universities did not have a choice—all those people had to be in their workplace all the way through the pandemic and will continue to be there.

The knowledge economy is different. In some ways, historically, Cambridge has evolved in a unique way to foster networking. Those who are familiar with the college system will know that it has its pluses and minuses, but one of the great bonuses is the sense of people being together and meeting in human-sized communities. When one looks at the way the science parks, innovation centres and networking organisations, such as Cambridge Network, Cambridge Ahead and Cambridge Angels, have grown up, along with many of the consultancies that have emerged in Cambridge, one can see that it is key that those opportunities for people to meet and discuss continue as they have in the past.

David Cleevely talks passionately about what he calls the serendipity of the chance meetings that so often lead to breakthrough ideas. I have lost count of the number of people who have told me they were padlocking their bicycles in Cambridge and a chance conversation led to an investment opportunity, a discussion or a new idea. Those moments—in other places they are the water-cooler moments; in Cambridge, they are the bike-locking moments—are crucial.

The report argues that policy makers need to understand how these changes will work for city economies, so that we can respond positively and take advantage of them. Our places must not only be resilient to the shocks of the future but evolve, adapt and mature through the process, taking the opportunity to do things better than they were done before. To achieve that, we must be on the front foot and experiment to help us understand what new demands we need to make of our cities, and how resources could and should provide for all.

Cambridge Ahead is a business-led and academic membership organisation. It has been looking at the structural changes that have occurred in Cambridge during and after the pandemic, looking at internationally competitive companies, and bringing together world-leading thinkers to identify the impacts of the pandemic and the opportunities it might present. Clearly, the report was produced through the lens of Cambridge, but I believe much can be learned for other great small cities across the UK. Cambridge Ahead concluded that the UK is on a new path and that the changes we are seeing are substantially changing the city’s dynamics in a number of ways. I will touch on three points.

First, transport patterns have altered. It is pretty clear that private vehicles are still being used in preference to public transport. Public transport numbers have recovered, but not to pre-covid levels. The timing of people’s journeys has also shifted. That offers both a threat and an opportunity. There is a danger of gridlock, frankly, but if we can spread the peaks and understand that road spaces are a precious commodity, there is an opportunity to do something differently—to develop active travel in a city the size of Cambridge. There is a genuine opportunity to shift to things such as electric bikes—I am a passionate user of an electric bike myself; they are ideal for small cities such as Cambridge—and reliable, affordable mass transit into and out of the city to make sure that those outside the city are not disadvantaged.

This is a time of real opportunity, but to realise it, we have to resolve the vexed issue of financing such a transition. I make no apology for referring the Minister to my very first speech in this place, back in 2015. Perhaps slightly unusually in a first speech, I talked about tax increment financing and how close Cambridge had come to securing a truly innovative deal a few years earlier, until the dead hand of the Treasury descended, as it so often does. It is time for the Government to look at that again.

Secondly, the demand for space is changing. Perhaps counterintuitively, demand for office space in Cambridge continues to grow, even though not everyone is back. The report details why that is: people want to maintain a space, and with social distancing and so on, we do not necessarily have people back together in quite the same way. At the same time, people are also working from home. The report concludes that it looks as if we are going to settle back at somewhere between three and four days a week in the office for most people, meaning one and a half days working at home.

That means that people are working in places that were never originally designed as workplaces, which raises some real challenges, not least the need to develop far more neighbourhoods—or quarters, as one might call them—with services nearby. Academics are talking widely about the 15-minute city. We need to do that and find a way to create it. We also need green spaces for people to be able to enjoy those new workplaces. That is a very big planning issue and there are many ways to address it, but I gently suggest—this might be slightly controversial at home—that for Cambridge, where many of our green spaces are locked behind college walls, sharing that space more equitably with citizens of our city should be high on the list for those who have the opportunity to make these decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. As he said, I am a neighbour of his; I am the MP for the bit of Cambridge that is not in his constituency. I pay tribute to Cambridge Ahead, which does excellent work—this is an excellent report.

The hon. Member makes a lot of interesting points about the changing nature of Cambridge. I just want to highlight a couple of other things. You mentioned quite a range of workers who could not work from home, but I do not think you included laboratory workers. A lot of those who work for life sciences companies, particularly in my constituency, have to go into laboratories to work, and they often stayed there throughout the pandemic. You mentioned the shortage of office space—

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Order. I did not mention anything.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for those contributions—they are all important. I mentioned lab workers in passing at the beginning, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Cambridge economy is perhaps slightly different from other parts of the country, but many of these lessons, particularly those relating to reinventing the high street, will be key. The report picks up on the fact that a number of companies are looking at setting up work spaces in other areas, not necessarily in the city centre, so it is likely that there will be a different pattern to the way in which people work in future.

The third and final point that I will pull out from the report—this is, inevitably, a brief summary of a long, complicated report—is that the biggest thing for innovation in Cambridge is, as I have already hinted, how networks work and may change. New working patterns affect the frequency and manner in which we interact with people. There are generally many benefits to homeworking. At the document’s launch there was a discussion about our need—I think we can all appreciate this—for places where we are not being constantly interrupted and where we can think and work through ideas. Homeworking provides an opportunity for such a productive space, and it can clearly boost people’s quality of life.

However—and this is key for innovation—we still need to create moments of value where people come together. The report describes that as making “serendipitous encounters” happen—in other places, that could be the water cooler moment—which has been key to Cambridge’s success. Many people over many years have asked why Cambridge has done so well. This is one of the key understandings that we have learned over the years. We have to ensure that, in the transition to different working patterns, we do not lose that. To be frank, that is important not only for Cambridge. Cambridge is a key, significant driver not just of the regional economy but of the wider UK economy, so it is very important to the Government.

That is a brief summary of a much longer argument, but lessons can be pulled out for other small cities, too. Cambridge has a proud tradition of innovation and we could be an ideal test bed for new approaches. Our economy continues to grow and there are opportunities to observe, measure, experiment and learn. That will require selecting projects to monitor proactively, publish data and test ideas, so that other cities can benefit and share in the experience, with an emphasis on generating societal benefit for every community.

We are asking Government to work with Cambridge and perhaps other like-minded cities to take the work forward to the next step. I hope the Government will follow up on this discussion and agree to meet us to discuss the creation of what might be called a multi-disciplinary test bed: a framework for implementing experiments and studies, covering health, education, climate, retail, town and city centre offers, transport, housing, business models and the evolution of office and industrial space. Cities across the UK have different characteristics and face different challenges, and they will want to experiment in different ways. Of course, an experimental approach is not without risks. Some experiments will fail, but the vital thing is to have the mechanisms to monitor and learn.

In conclusion, our cities have changed substantially and will continue to do so. There will be no return to the way things were, so let us take action together to take advantage of these changes and give our cities the resilience they need to face the future.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister to respond to the debate.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

rose—

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

This is a 30-minute debate and we have not had notification that the hon. Member for Gloucester wanted to speak.

[Richard Graham]

My understanding was that my office had put me down to speak in the debate.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman certainly sought my permission.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Thank you for making that clear. I will allow the Member to speak, but only for two minutes.

Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the scheme. He made the point about ensuring that we speed up all the security and visa checks as quickly as possible. As I mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already acted in that regard.

From tomorrow, anyone with a Ukrainian passport will be able to apply online. Thanks to a surge in the number of caseworkers in the Home Office, they should be able to have permission turned around and granted very quickly. A PDF will be sent straight to them and they can then fly into this country to a warm welcome. As a result, the surge of staff in our visa application centres will be able to deal with individuals who, for whatever reason, do not have a passport or the capacity to secure one quickly, which means that we will be able to more quickly process the number of Ukrainians who wish to come here. As was pointed out earlier, 4,000 visas have been granted and the numbers are due to surge this week.

The hon. Gentleman made the point that charities, churches and community groups have all stepped up. We want to ensure that we are working with all of them this week to facilitate their role, not just in matching individual sponsors and Ukrainians who might benefit but in extending the reach of the support we give so that it is not just a roof over someone’s head but the valuable interpersonal support of which so many are capable.

When I was chatting to faith groups earlier today, I had the opportunity to talk to representatives of not just the Ukrainian Churches, but the Church of England, the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church, including the Roman Catholic bishops in Scotland, all of whom are anxious to ensure that we do everything that we can to help. For individuals who, for whatever reason, find that a sponsorship solution does not work for them, we will ensure that the local government partners and charity partners with whom we are working receive the resource that they require. The £350 is there for individuals, but charities and community groups will have a vital role to play in helping to marshal individual offers.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about unaccompanied minors, orphans and others who need our support. We are working with those on the ground to ensure that we can have the right solution for them.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about working with the devolved Administrations. I was grateful to the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales for their generous offer to act as super-sponsors, and we are doing everything we can to facilitate that. My officials are working with those in the Scottish and Welsh Governments to ensure that we can do that in a way that enables everyone to live up to their responsibilities.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. He has answered many of the questions that arose over the weekend, but may I press him specifically on when he expects phase 2 to start and what work is already going on with non-governmental organisations? Those organisations make the point that they have many people who have already been checked by the Disclosure and Barring Service, but the volunteers coming forward in my constituency tend not to have been. We know that there are already backlogs in DBS checking, so can he assure me that that will be sped up?

I have a practical question about people who are planning to move home over the course of the next six months. Will they still be able to take part even if their address changes?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes three good points. We are working this week with civil society and NGOs. Indeed, Lord Harrington and I met them in order to ensure that we can expedite phase 2 as quickly as possible, and we will update the House in real time over the next few days. On the second point, about safeguarding, we are working with the Home Office. We do not believe that we need to have full DBS checks in order to ensure that someone is an appropriate sponsor. Very light-touch criminal checks will often be sufficient, and then local authorities can be supported in order to ensure that people are safe, in line with the points made by the Opposition—points that my right hon. Friend made much more sharply, of course. If people are moving house, which is something I have had to do recently, we will do everything possible to facilitate their support.

Building Safety

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I know that the hon. Gentleman, not least as a former council leader, has considerable experience in this area. He is right that the fire in New York reminds us of the range of risk, and he is also right that we need to take appropriate action to ensure that registered social landlords, housing associations and others are not hit adversely. We need to balance a set of competing goods, but ultimately—as he will appreciate—the most important thing is to make sure that people are in decent, safe homes and that there are more decent, safe homes built where people need them.

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

My right hon. Friend spoke earlier about lifting the cloud that is hanging over leaseholders. Can he provide reassurance to residents such as those in Banning Street in Romsey, where the building is sub-18 metres, the freeholder is a housing association and the defects are cladding related, that they will be swept up in his reforms? They are looking at costs of £15,000 to £20,000 per leaseholder for new fire escapes, which may well not even be needed. Can he provide reassurance that they will be helped?

[Michael Gove]

I will absolutely look at that specific case. I do not want to say any more at this point, but my hon. Friend raises a very important point. One of the things with housing associations and other registered social landlords is that we need to make sure that the balance of responsibility is appropriate.

Greenbelt: Local Plans

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Before we begin the next debate, I again encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission, and to give each other and staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.

High Streets

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. Please also give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. You will all have seen that it is a very heavily subscribed debate, so I will impose a time limit. Janet Daby will move the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing today’s debate. Over the past few years, as the hon. Lady has said, we have seen an increase in businesses moving away from physical retail space to an online model. The move has benefited retailers at the top levels of their companies, as it comes with associated savings in areas such as business rates or, for us Scots, non-domestic rates. Such moves, however, have a heavy impact on local communities: fewer jobs, for example, or a lack of accessibility.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members to keep interventions brief.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Yes, Ms Nokes. Would the hon. Member agree that the Government should incentivise retailers to maintain a physical presence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I was in primary school at the time that my hon. Friend Gentleman mentions, but I thank him for the intervention. We need a fair tax system, and I will address that in my speech.

I see the effects of the system of business taxation play out in my constituency of Lewisham East. Taxation is simply too high for small and medium-sized enterprises, especially after an insurmountable fall in revenue since March 2020. The current system of business taxation is outdated and unfair. It punishes small businesses aspiring to serve local communities and allows online empires to grow only stronger. In 2019, it was estimated that the eight largest tech companies operating in the UK avoided a combined total of £1.5 billion in tax.

A House of Commons public survey found concerns for our high street and ideas for improvement. Clair said that

“it’s sad to see so many town centres looking deserted, as many shops have been forced to close due to rents and rates.”

Kate said:

“There are empty units which make the town look dead”.

Nobody wants a dead town. Jags was concerned about antisocial behaviour rising on high streets when shops are boarded up. When asked what the Government could do to turn around prospects for high street businesses, Jane simply said:

“Slash taxes for small businesses. Make it worth our while to work the hours we do.”

I agree and Labour agrees.

We need a Government who demonstrate that they are pro-workers and pro-business. A review of all tax breaks needs to happen. The Government need to be serious about investing in a sustainable way that allows home-grown businesses to flourish and ensures the best value for the taxpayer. The local high street is for leisure, but for some it is a lifeline. Almost half of the people living in London use their local area daily. My constituents rely on local shops. They do not want to have to do a laborious journey on public transport or drive through busy London to run their errands. This applies especially to those living with disabilities or pushing prams, or to elderly people struggling with walkers. Why should their lives become more difficult when people wish to shop local and local people wish to work local?

It is not just a problem in cities. High streets that are a centre point for towns across the country are being neglected. A thriving high street can be a source of great pride and a declining one can be shameful. When an area is in decline, property prices fall, the young professionals move out of the area and the local environment begins to decay. We see poverty intensifying and becoming more visible.

The recent trend of high-street bank closures is especially concerning. According to the House of Commons Library, in the past nine years almost 40% of high-street bank branches have closed their doors. In the year between March 2020 and March 2021, 700 branches have closed. That is staggeringly high. I can see the effects in my constituency. The Catford HSBC branch always has queues going out the door, yet it is due to close, which is absurd. The branch is needed because not everyone can adapt easily to online banking. Not everyone has broadband or the support to make the transition to online. It excludes a huge swathe of vulnerable people. All of those customers now need to go into the centre of Lewisham, adding pressure to that branch. A branch of Barclays in the area has already closed. I wonder why the Minister thinks this trend is developing and whether he agrees with it. Will he support my call for HSBC to reconsider this closure?

We should not expect the general public to be comfortable with doing everything online. Local places closing means familiar and trusted people and services are disappearing. It also deprives people of those small moments of human contact, which may seem like nothing to one person, but to another are the tipping point into social isolation. It is essential to people’s wellbeing that in-person services continue. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what can be done.

While I want to focus today on the burden that the Government’s tax rates place on our struggling businesses, we cannot ignore the impact of the shortage of HGV drivers on our high streets. This is a Brexit-induced crisis that was completely foreseeable. Coupled with the lack of workers to tend to our crops and farm animals, shops have experienced dire product levels on their shelves. High-street cash and carries are struggling to serve their customers. We are also hearing reports of pressure building towards Christmas. When it comes to Christmas, we know it is serious. Most British households want a turkey—I want a turkey—but not every family that wants one will get one, and that is the headline. This comes at the same time as the shocking news of a labour shortage, meaning that pigs are being slaughtered and their meat is unsellable. We all need supply chains freed up and workers trained up so that the embarrassing lack of stocks can be resolved and a Christmas dinner crisis averted.

The Mayor of London has put vision into action to inject new life into our high streets. He is creating vibrant shopfronts for vacant properties, supporting start-ups and keeping the streets clean and appealing. However, there is only so much that local leaders can do. We need a Government to show up and show that they back businesses, workers and communities.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

There are not as many Members as I first feared, so an informal guidance for about five minutes would be very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien]

I am afraid I will take no further interventions—[Interruption.]

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not taking interventions.

[Neil O'Brien]

Despite being a Huddersfield boy, I cannot take further interventions, because we are pushed for time.

In Worcester, support from our future high streets fund is being used to renovate several iconic and beautiful buildings, including the local corn exchange, driving footfall and preserving the community’s heritage. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn and Haslingden (Sara Britcliffe) also talked about the good that such schemes are doing in her constituency. Those are the kind of transformative projects that hold the key to restoring local pride and laying the foundations for our long-term economic recovery. That is exactly what underpins our levelling-up fund, which will be available to local areas across the UK.