Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 General Committees

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham, although it is not such a pleasure to see the Government Whip sitting with the Opposition. I trust that social distancing does not extend as far as political distancing.

The regulations were laid in draft before the House on Monday 6 July. If approved and made, they will introduce a fee for a new permitted development right that allows detached purpose-built blocks of flats of three storeys or more to be extended upwards by two stories to provide new homes without making an application for planning permission. They will be subject instead to obtaining prior approval from the local planning authority. The regulations will come into force on 1 August.

As hon. Members are aware, the Government’s moral mission is to build the homes we need, and that is more critical than ever. It is fundamental to our economic recovery following the pandemic to get Britain building back better, faster and greener, and uniting and levelling up our entire country. To achieve that, we must make the most of land that has already been developed. That is what this new permitted development right does, creating new homes for sale and rent that would not otherwise exist. That will benefit families, young people and many others at the heart of established communities.

I turn to the draft regulations. The prior approval process means that, instead of going through a full planning application process, a developer must secure the prior approval of a local planning authority for specific planning elements of the development before work can proceed. That allows for a more streamlined planning process while maintaining local oversight of key planning matters. In relation to the new permitted development right, the number of additional considerations as well as consultation and scrutiny by local authorities is greater than for existing permitted developments’ prior approval applications but less than otherwise required on a full planning application.

That has resource implications for local authorities. It is therefore right that a higher fee should be paid compared with other prior approval applications but less than that for a full planning application. That is reflected in the regulations in the new part 20 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, which introduces a fee for applications for prior approval for such upward extensions of existing blocks of flats of £334 per dwelling house for development proposals of 50 or fewer new dwelling houses. For development proposals of more than 50 new dwelling houses, the fee is £16,525 plus an additional £100 for each dwelling house in excess of 50, subject to a maximum fee of £300,000.

The £334 fee represents a modest midway point between the £206 fee for an application for prior approval for the change of use of a building to residential and the fee for a full planning application of £462 per new dwelling house. As such, it strikes an important balance between accelerating the delivery of much-needed homes and ensuring that local authorities, which will be required to assess applications for prior approval for this new permitted development right, are paid for the service they provide. If there was no application fee, this cost would have to be funded by the taxpayer.

The approach that I have set out was welcomed in our consultation, “Planning Reform: Supporting the high street and increasing the delivery of new homes”, which was published in October 2018. The responses to it recognised that the proposed changes would require significant local planning authority resources and should therefore be subject to an appropriate fee. Planning fees are an important source of income for councils, as the basis of a well-resourced, effective and efficient planning system, underpinning housing delivery and economic growth.

In January 2018 the Government raised planning application fees by 20%, which was the first uplift since 2012. The increased income that generated for the planning system has driven up the performance of local planning authorities, which I believe we will all agree with.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I do not disagree with what the Minister is saying; it may be a good idea. I presume there is guidance on how that will be dealt with. If a developer has a three-storey block of flats and wants to build over the top, would the practice be to move the residents out or to build over them, and what consultation would there be of the residents affected by the additional floors going above their property? That might be one of the key factors that the local authority and other people will be concerned about.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his question. The individual leaseholder agreements with the freeholder will determine some of the issues that he has raised. Certainly, as part of prior approval it will be necessary for the local authority to consider such matters as the effect on leaseholders’ or residents’ amenity, so the prior approvals process will apply in that sense.

We are keen to keep up the momentum to help us, in the words of the Prime Minister, “Build, build, build” towards a brighter future, following an extraordinarily challenging period for our country. That is why we are considering wider reform of the planning system, with these draft regulations underlining our commitment to a system that is fit for the 21st century. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the Committee for its time, and to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for his questions and his support in principle for this measure.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned three key points, the first of which was building quality. He is right to suppose that the Secretary of State’s decision was made as a result of conversations that he had with several colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and Opposition Members, about requiring that there be appropriate windows and lighting in all habitable rooms with this PDR. That is an important piece of progress that we have made.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the regulations surrounding the PDRs will still require building regulations to be met. There will still be the prior approval test to be applied in any prior approvals that any local authority might apply. I also remind him that the report that we commissioned on PDRs for conversion, and the quality standards in those conversions, has been under- taken. We look forward to considering the report’s recommendations in due course.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the rights of lease- holders. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, leaseholders will certainly have the right to consultation and will be part of the prior approval process. Beyond that, of course, on the question of leasehold reform, the White Paper and the legislation that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), will introduce in due course will encompass many of these matters. I am sure that we will debate them again, so I will not dwell on them further now.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned affordable homes. We reckon that building more homes in this way will be worth about 8,000 extra homes a year that would not otherwise be built. We are providing properties that people want. Housing associations, which own some of these blocks, can build upwards more effectively and provide affordable homes if they wish for their potential tenants. I also point out that if it is appropriate, the extra floor space created might generate CIL payments, which can be contributed towards the local community. The wider planning reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering will include further consideration of how developer contributions work and what that might mean for our affordable housing programme.

I hope that my remarks have answered the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I look forward to further such collaborations with him in future, and perhaps also the occasional joust. On that note, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 General Committees

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. The regulations were laid before the House on 30 June and, if approved and made, will give local authorities the discretion to help small and medium-sized developers experiencing financial difficulties because of the effects of the coronavirus epidemic. They will enable local authorities to defer community infrastructure levy payments without having to impose additional costs on developers. Although we have already put in place a range of measures to help businesses affected by the effects of coronavirus, we recognise that small and medium-sized enterprise developers require additional assistance.

SME builders have been declining in the long term and were hit hard by the last recession. There were 16% more builder and developer insolvencies in 2019 than in 2018. The vast majority of those were SMEs. SME developers are now under further pressure because of the epidemic, so giving local authorities the discretion to grant a deferral of CIL payment liabilities for SMEs is another important step in supporting the sector.

Both developers and local authorities have requested that we introduce a deferral mechanism. However, we recognise that local authorities will be best placed to understand the needs and pressures in their area, so these regulations do not mandate that local authorities defer CIL payments, but instead give them the discretion to do so where they think that appropriate. The regulations make the same provision for the Mayor of London should the Mayor consider it appropriate to defer mayoral CIL payments.

CIL regulations first came into force in April 2010. They enable local planning authorities and the Mayor of London to raise a levy on new development in their local area to fund a wide range of infrastructure to support development. The CIL becomes payable within 60 days of building works commencing unless the charging authority has published an instalment policy. However, the payment schedule set out in an instalment policy can apply only to development that commences after the policy is published. Therefore, although an authority can help developers that have not started building work with their CIL payments by publishing an instalment policy, it does not have the power to defer payments for development that has already commenced.

Where the developer fails to pay on time, the current regulations require the local authority to administer late payment interest on the CIL amount owed, and allow for the imposition of late payment surcharges. The local authority has further powers to enforce, as set out in part 9 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. The regulations being debated today introduce amendments to that statutory instrument to address the financial effects that coronavirus has brought upon SME developers, including development sites that have stalled because of financial instability. These provisions have been developed following close engagement with the industry and local authorities.

As to the detail of the amendments, we are, first, making changes to allow local authorities the discretion to defer temporarily CIL payments for SMEs in certain circumstances—namely, where the SME is experiencing financial difficulty for reasons connected to the effects of coronavirus and is required to pay a CIL amount during the specified time. SMEs may apply in writing to the local authority no more than 14 days before or as soon as practicable after the date the CIL payment is due, requesting a deferment of the payment. The collecting authority can request whatever information from the developer it reasonably needs to consider the deferral request. It must consider a deferral request as soon as is practicable after it is received and grant or refuse the request in writing. Payments can be deferred for up to six months. Where the deferment payment falls due on or before 31 July 2021, the developer could submit a further deferral request.

Under the current regulations, where a developer has not paid their CIL liability by the date set on the demand notice, late payment interest automatically accrues. That late payment interest accrues at 2.5% above the base rate. Charging authorities may also apply late payment surcharges. We recognise that it would be unfair to continue to apply those charges where a developer has applied to defer a CIL payment. We have therefore paused the application of late payment interest and surcharges while a deferral request is being considered.

The regulations also allow, where a deferral request has been agreed, for the developer to request that any late payment interest that has accrued in the period between lockdown and the deferral request being agreed be credited and taken off the total of the CIL amount owed. That is termed an interest request and ensures that SMEs will not be penalised because of the effects of coronavirus. The regulations make the same provisions for the CIL collected by London boroughs on behalf of the Mayor of London.

Contributions from developers play an important role in delivering the infrastructure that new homes and local economies require. The measures set out in the regulations enable the collecting authority to exercise their discretion to defer payment of CIL on a case-by-case basis. That will give local authorities the discretion to help SME developers who are struggling with cash flow, and ensure that CIL payments are made, albeit over a longer period, rather than being lost because a small builder goes out of business.

I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous approach to the Committee’s deliberations of this statutory instrument. I am happy to answer his questions. He first asked what criteria are applied by a local authority to determine whether an applicant is an SME. The criteria are very clear. The applicant must have a turnover of not more than £45 million a year, which is the normal criterion applied to whether a firm is or is not an SME. That will be the key criterion applied by local authorities in their determination of an application.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether there will be a gap issue in funding for local authorities. We have talked to local authorities. We have talked to Croydon, Ealing, East Suffolk, Havering, Hillingdon, Richmond, Southwark, and Tower Hamlets—he mentioned that particular authority in passing. Labour and Conservative, and, in the case of Richmond, Liberal Democrat, local authorities all agree that our approach is right and sensible. They all agree that it is better to defer payments than risk SMEs going out of business and having no payments at all—and indeed no construction at all.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we would be prepared to review the regulations after three or so months. I think adding further burdens on local authorities in that way is possibly not the most sensible approach, but we are always mindful of our liaison with the LGA. We always look closely at the effects of our policies and will keep it in mind.

In conclusion, I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration and to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale and the Opposition for their support. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that we have given £3.2 billion to local authorities—a further £450 million last week. We have deferred business rates. We have given them £63 million for the non-shielded food vulnerable. I think that is a relatively good record of support for local authorities. In the spirit of generosity, I hope he will reach out to the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) and remind him that it is not sensible to attack homeowners for receiving a “bung” in the reduction of stamp duty. That is designed to help homebuyers and the housing sector. I hope the Committee will support the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Flammable Cladding Removal

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for securing the Adjournment debate and bringing this important subject to the House today. She secured a similar debate in April last year. I know it is a matter of considerable importance in her constituency, and I pay tribute to her on the record for the work she is doing on behalf of her constituents. I also thank all hon. Members who have taken the time to intervene on behalf of their constituents about the challenges of remediating high-rise residential buildings with unsafe cladding systems, particularly in the light of covid-19.

We established our building safety programme within days of the Grenfell Tower fire. Its aim remains to ensure that residents of high-rise buildings are safe, now and in the future. Our aim has been clear from the outset: unsafe ACM cladding of the type found on Grenfell Tower and other dangerous cladding must be removed from high-rise residential buildings. It is therefore our priority to ensure that unsafe ACM cladding is removed and replaced swiftly, at no cost to leaseholders.

While many responsible building owners have taken action, some—as the hon. Lady says—have not. Too many building owners and managing agents in the private sector have been too slow in getting remediation work started.

[Tom Hunt]

A legal dispute is going on between the freeholder of St Francis Tower in Ipswich and the contractor that put the unsafe cladding on the building. Surely that is an admission from both parties that one of them is to blame, not the leaseholder, yet the leaseholder is in the middle and is getting harassed to pay fees that it should not have to pay.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will not dwell on any particular tower block or issue, but let me simply say that our intention is to make sure that leaseholders should not have to foot the bill; building owners and building managers and their agents should be looking after their buildings. That is why the Government have intervened with funding and specialist support, and we will not tolerate any further delays. Where building owners are failing to make acceptable progress, those responsible should expect local authorities and fire and rescue services to take tougher enforcement action.

By the end of May, of the 455 identified high-rise buildings with ACM cladding, 209 had either completed remediation or had their ACM cladding systems removed, while a further 86 had started remediation but not yet had ACM cladding removed. However, although there has been progress, there is much more to be done. We are under no illusion about that. For the removal of unsafe ACM cladding, we are aiming for all building owners to have works on site by the end of 2020, with completion of remedial works by the end of 2021. It is a challenge, but one that we are determined to meet.

Even with public funding available, the pace has been much too slow. We recognise that remediation is a complex undertaking and that every building is different; we also understand that building owners do not always have the requisite expertise or experience to advance the work. We have therefore recently appointed Faithful+Gould as specialist construction consultants to help responsible entities to increase capacity and capability and to support them directly through the remediation process. F+G is currently working with those buildings identified as most at risk of missing the end-of-year date. It is examining project plans and seeking ways to reduce timescales to mobilise projects.

Overall, the Government have set aside £1.6 billion in funding for the remediation of ACM and other types of unsafe cladding from high-rise residential buildings in the private and social housing sectors. We made that money available to support the remediation of unsafe cladding, and a large proportion of that support will protect leaseholders from costs. We recognise that there are wider remediation costs that will need to be met to ensure the safety of existing blocks of flats, but the public funding does not absolve the industry from taking responsibility for any failures that led to unsafe cladding materials being put on those buildings in the first place. We expect developers, investors and building owners who have the means to pay to take responsibility and cover the cost of remediation themselves, without passing on costs to leaseholders.

The Government have committed £600 million to remediate buildings in the public, social and private sectors and speed up the pace of remediation of ACM cladding. In the private sector, although some developers said that they would meet the costs, it became clear that a significant number of building owners could not or would not do so, and therefore funding needed to be made available to enable progress. That is why in May 2019 we announced that £200 million of funding would be available for ACM remediation in private sector buildings, and the fund was opened for applications in September that year. As of May 2020, the Department expects to pay for 94 projects in the private sector where the developer or building owner has not agreed to fund remediation work themselves. The owners of 84 private sector residential buildings have committed to funding the remediation works themselves, with a further 23 self- funded through accepted warranty claims. We are working with a handful of other buildings where a funding route has yet to be agreed. The availability of funding and a direct package of support for building owners means that there can be no excuses for further delays. For those who fail to make acceptable progress, tougher sanctions are coming, first through our Fire Safety Bill, currently before Parliament, and subsequently when our new building safety regime comes into place.

We have always acknowledged that there are materials other than ACM cladding that are of concern. We have been providing advice on their removal to building owners since 2017. The highest priority has been the removal of the type of ACM used on Grenfell Tower because it poses the most severe safety risk, but there are other unsafe cladding materials that must also be removed. That is why in March this year we announced an additional £1 billion of funding for the remediation of unsafe non-ACM cladding in the social and private residential sectors. We expect this funding to be fully committed by the end of March 2021. The new building safety fund will cover high-rise buildings with unsafe non-ACM cladding, such as some types of high-pressure laminate.

The issue of waking watch was raised by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and by other hon. and right hon. Members. I know that leaseholders have concerns about costs of interim measures—costs that have been heightened due to the covid-19 emergency. These interim measures include waking watches. Waking watch is meant to be a short-term tool: it is no substitute for remediation. But the only way to remove the need for interim measures is to remove unsafe cladding as quickly as possible. That is why we are prioritising £1.6 billion of public subsidy on remediation of unsafe cladding. That said, my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh, the Minister with responsibility for building safety, is investigating what we can do to reduce the cost of waking watch. This includes publishing data on the costs of waking watch to ensure greater transparency on costs. Moreover, the National Fire Chiefs Council is updating its guidance. We have asked the fire protection boards to advise fire and rescue services on how best to operationalise the revised guidance, including looking to measures such as installing building-wide fire alarm systems.

[Meg Hillier]

Will the Minister commit to looking at the issue of professional indemnity insurance? This does need a good political fix at the top.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady has mentioned professional indemnity insurance. Let me assure her that following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s commitment to review the situation on—I believe, from memory—2 April this year, my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh has met members of the insurance industry and other fire and safety professionals. I think the last meeting was on 30 June. He is investigating, at pace, ways in which this particular issue may be remedied.

Our landmark building safety Bill, announced in December, will bring the biggest change in our building safety regime for a generation. It will build on the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review of building regulations and fire safety. It contains provisions to help to remedy the systemic failings that resulted in the Grenfell Tower fire. The new regime will give residents a stronger voice in an improved system of fire safety, overseen by a more effective regulatory framework, including stronger powers to inspect high-rise buildings and sanctions to tackle irresponsible behaviour.

Much progress has been made since the hon. Member secured a similar debate in April last year: we have set aside £1.6 billion of funding to support the issue and resolve it; we have appointed specialist consultants to increase the pace of remediation; and we have introduced the Fire Safety Bill to strengthen enforcement action. But the hard work must continue, and it will.

We will shortly publish the draft building safety Bill—a once-in-a-generation change to the building safety regime—that will be instrumental not only in shaping future policy to allow the new regime to prevent fire safety defects from occurring in the first place, but also in ensuring that people are safe and feel safe in their homes. We will continue to work tirelessly to bring about the lasting change we need for the future of building safety and the future of all the people living in towers in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Business and Planning Bill

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

This is a cross-party effort. New clause 1 is in my name, but it is supported by many Members. I hope that the Government will take notice and provide support for an industry that is the fourth biggest employer in the United Kingdom and the biggest employer in Cumbria. While I recognise that extending support for that industry from October through to spring will be expensive, I want the Minister to realise that not providing that support will also be hideously expensive, as tens of thousands of people become unemployed and we see the collapse of businesses that would otherwise be healthy and ready to start the fightback from the beginning of the new season in spring. I will not seek to divide the Committee on this matter, but I strongly urge the Minister to acknowledge what I am saying and to commit the Government to supporting a package of support for hospitality and tourism right the way through to spring 2021.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I thank everyone in the Chamber for the constructive discussion that we have had in Committee and on Second Reading. I want particularly to thank Opposition Front Benchers for the positive discussions we have had over the last several days to bring this Bill through all its stages today.

I also thank all the members of the BEIS team who have provided such great support for the Bill, those in the Department for Transport, those in my office and particularly—in my own Department, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—Simon Gallagher and his planning team for all their efforts while there have been other demands, with the covid-19 emergency, on their time.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy set out, the overall aim of the Bill is to provide a boost to key sectors of our economy—the hospitality, construction, transport and SME sectors. It will support businesses across the economy, particularly in the hardest-hit sectors, to transition from the immediate crisis and the response to lockdown towards economic recovery. It will also support businesses to implement new safer ways of working to manage the ongoing risk of covid-19, and particularly the need, as we all know, for continued social distancing.

Hon. Members have made important points in their contributions on the amendments and new clauses tabled in Committee, and I should like to discuss them in turn. I turn first to amendment 3 to clause 9 of this Bill, which speaks to the same point as amendment 2. I thank Opposition Members for this amendment, as it raises the important matter that we would want to include in our definition of “relevant highway” those highways that benefit from a temporary traffic restriction order. This is particularly so given that more of these orders are now being made to encourage active travel, including walking, as people get back to work and more shops reopen. Our definition did not include highways where such temporary traffic restriction orders are in place, and it should have done; that was our intention. If we do not make this change, the scope of the pavement licence provisions will be limited, reducing the number of businesses that will be able to benefit and undermining the powers granted to local authorities that allow them to manage their public spaces in response to covid-19.

For those reasons, and in the spirit of the constructive comments made by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), I will accept this minor technical amendment, amendment 3, to the definition of relevant highway in clause 9. I am grateful to him for bringing it to our attention, and I invite him to move it formally later. [Interruption.] It may only be the one, but bag them while you can.

I turn to amendment 1 to clause 11. Clause 11, as drafted, provides a bespoke temporary change to the Licensing Act 2003 to provide an automatic extension to the terms of on-sales alcohol premises to allow the sale for consumption off the premises. This is the amendment to which the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) spoke very eloquently. It is important that every person wishing to sell alcohol has a licence to do so, and for licensing authorities to be able to record and regulate the sale of alcohol through their area of control. The amendment would allow mobile traders to sell alcohol in places not previously allowed, and that could lead to a significant number of alcohol sales taking place from new locations not previously allowed by licensing authorities, potentially leading to crowding and disorder in those new locations. I would encourage mobile traders to apply for a variation order to their licence under existing legislation. For that reason, I am not able to accept his amendment, although I understand the thrust of it. I also recognise that it is perhaps an important issue in rural areas such as the one that he represents, so I would be happy to talk to him further about how we can help the rural economy through this difficult time moving towards winter. I am sure that my colleagues in the Home Office will be prepared similarly so to do.

I now turn to new clauses 1 and 2. The extraordinary support that we have put in place has been about getting us through this crisis, and the Bill is now supporting us out of it. It is the case that some firms will be affected by coronavirus for longer than others, and the Government will seek to support these firms appropriately. So far, the coronavirus job retention scheme has helped 1.1 million employers across the United Kingdom to furlough 9.2 million jobs, protecting many, many people’s livelihoods. Starting with the first release on 11 June, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is publishing monthly figures for the coronavirus job retention scheme claims, broken down by employer size, sector and geography. These figures are publicly available on the gov.uk website. They show the total number of jobs furloughed and the value of claims made within the accommodation, food services, arts, entertainment and recreation sectors. The Office for National Statistics also provides a very great deal of data.

I therefore believe that there is data available that the House can see and that Opposition Members can use, and therefore there is no need for the new clause. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale is, I would suggest, a seasoned player in the Standing Orders of this House, and he knows how to use urgent questions, SO24 applications and Opposition day debates. There will be plenty of opportunities for him to raise issues of concern with the Executive at the Dispatch Box without the need for the new clause.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) spoke very eloquently about the importance of supporting the hospitality and leisure sector, particularly in rural economies as wintertime approaches. I remind him that the tools that we have put in place already, such as the job retention scheme, are only temporary. There may be other, more effective and more sensible long-term tools to support the economic sectors to which he referred. The Chancellor made it absolutely clear in his remarks at the Dispatch Box during the Budget and subsequently that he will do whatever it takes to support our economy and its relevant sectors as we move through this crisis. I am therefore afraid that we cannot support new clauses 1 and 2, and I encourage those who proposed them to withdraw them.

I thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for tabling new clause 4, which would require the Secretary of State, prior to making any regulations to extend the time limits associated with the powers in respect of construction working hours, or extending the duration of certain planning permissions or extensions in connection with outline planning permissions, to make a statement to the House on the reasons for the extension beyond 1 April 2021. We recognise that there are concerns about this, but let me assure the hon. Gentleman that the powers in question were drawn in a proportionate way to address only what is necessary to facilitate the continued activity in the sector through this crisis. These delegated powers are considered essential to allow the flexibility necessary to respond to the emerging effects of coronavirus, its potential continuing effect on the sector, and the uncertainty around its future trajectory. Our intention is to exercise the powers only if the effects of coronavirus, including social distancing measures or other restrictions, continue for a longer period. I can make that clear to him from the Dispatch Box.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Just to pick up on new clause 4 and on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), while this from the Government is viewed as continuing into the future, the importance of the new clause is taking stock of the situation and realising how well that has worked. From comments across the Chamber, I am sure that the Minister understands there is concern about or fear of mayhem, because this is being rushed through. Local authorities such as Warwick District Council and Warwickshire County Council, have few resources, are under huge financial pressure and have little capacity to be able to enforce such changes. I welcome what the Government are trying to do, but I have real concerns about the ability to enforce.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I will address it, if I may, when I come to new clause 6, which the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) mentioned. To speak partly to his point, and in conclusion on this, the powers are subject to the affirmative procedure for draft regulations, which will enable Parliament to scrutinise thoroughly any relevant use of the powers, because the approval of both Houses will be needed. I therefore do not think that there is a need for new clause 4, and I would invite the Opposition to withdraw it.

With respect to new clause 5, again I thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for its tabling, because it provides an opportunity to give reassurance that local authorities will not be overburdened by the proposals in the Bill. This new clause would require the Secretary of State, following consultation with local planning authorities, to publish a report to provide an assessment of the costs to be incurred by local authorities as part of our proposed planning measures in the context of the covid-19 epidemic.

The applications relate to both the provision allowing for applications to extend construction working hours under clause 16 and the additional environmental approval process under clauses 17 and 18. Both the new forms of application will be free of charge to the applicant, which is to encourage developers to take advantage of the provisions in order to start or resume development as quickly as possible.

For three reasons, we do not consider the cost burden of either route to be particularly onerous on local planning authorities. First, each route deals with a single issue, and the onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient information. If insufficient information is provided by the developer, in the case of an additional environmental approval application or of an application for an extension to construction site working hours, the application will not count as having been made at all.

Secondly, as I said, the measures are temporary. This will therefore only be a short-term administrative burden over the course of this financial year. Thirdly, we do not expect individual authorities to face a deluge of applications under each route. For example, our analysis shows that by 1 August 546 planning permissions for major residential developments across the country would have lapsed since 23 March, an average of 1.5 permissions per authority. Cumulatively, it is important to the economy to see those progress, but for individual local planning authorities we do not believe that the effect will be particularly onerous. Again, I invite the Opposition to withdraw the clause.

I will speak briefly to new clause 6, as many Members are watching. I appreciate that some Members are concerned about the need to ensure that any changes made under the fast-track legislation are restricted to what is proportionate and necessary. Ensuring that measures are time-limited can be an effective way to do that, but a rolling review provision across the whole of Act is not the best approach in this case.

The first reason is that two provisions in the Bill are permanent; they would be jeopardised by a rolling review of the entire Bill. The second is that part of the reason for these measures is to give the business community, local authorities and Government agencies certainty about what they need to do with certain planning activities. A cliff edge 90-day end to the processes that they are undertaking would remove any chance of the certainty that they are looking for.

The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch has many ways in which she can advance her concerns. She can use Standing Orders, in which she is a seasoned expert, to look at SO 24 debates; she can encourage her Front Benchers to undertake Opposition debates, and she can use the Public Accounts Committee to undertake inquiries. There are many ways in which she can progress her concerns other than through new clause 6.

[Meg Hillier]

My drafting may not have been perfect; the Bill has been very rushed, so it was difficult to get it right. Can the Minister give me any comfort that, in his mind or the Government’s, there is scope to allow a three-month review point on the licensing element so that there is simply a review? Given the Government’s majority, they would have to agree to any change anyway, but a review point seems a sensible, proportionate measure so that we can all reflect on how this is working and pick up any issues. If he could give me an indication of whether that is something the Government might consider as the Bill goes through the other place, that would be very helpful.

[Christopher Pincher]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s concern and I understand why she raises those points. However, I simply reiterate that introducing a rolling review would kill certain aspects of the Bill and reduce the certainty and clarity that businesses and planners are looking for. It may also jeopardise the conclusion of the Bill before the summer recess, and we need to get it on the statute book so that businesses around our country can benefit from its provisions over the summer months.

Let me reiterate the importance of this Bill for our economy in these extraordinary times. As we emerge from this pandemic, we need to do all we can to support our economic recovery and help businesses adjust to a new and safe way of working. I therefore encourage the House to support amendment 3 tabled by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), and I encourage the proponents of all other amendments to withdraw them.

[Mike Amesbury]

This has been a constructive debate, and I thank Members across the Chamber for their positive contributions and suggestions, which I hope will be taken up in the other place. I thank the Government, and I thank the Minister in particular for his positive engagement. We are happy to withdraw amendment 2 in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I look forward to moving amendment 3. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Interpretation

Amendment made: 3, page 7, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) Subsection (1B) applies for the purposes of—

(a) the reference in section 1(5)(a) to a highway to which Part 7A of the Highways Act 1980 applies, and

(b) the references to traffic orders in section 3(6)(a)(i) and (b) (which, by virtue of section 3(7), have the same meaning as in that Part of that Act).

(1B) The definition of “traffic order” in section 115A(2) of the Highways Act 1980 is to be treated as if it included an order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 made pursuant to subsection (1)(b) or (c) of that section under the procedure provided for by regulation 18 of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/1215) (procedure for temporary orders made for purposes connected to coronavirus).”—(Mike Amesbury.)

This amendment secures that the provisions about pavement licences apply where a highway is subject to a temporary traffic order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for reasons relating to coronavirus.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Planning: Online Access to Documentation

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I would like to make a statement on planning and access to documentation.

Responding to covid -19—temporary measures to ease restrictions on the planning system

Today the Government have introduced the Business and Planning Bill in Parliament. The Bill responds to the covid-19 emergency and brings forward temporary changes to the planning system to support economic recovery. This statement sets out supporting temporary measures that the Government propose to ensure the planning system continues to operate effectively.

Online inspection of documents

The effects of covid-19 mean that it is not possible for everyone to enter public buildings safely to access certain planning documents made available for inspection. The Government have made it clear (written ministerial statement, “Virtual working and planning—responding to covid-19 restrictions” Official Report 13 May 2020;12WS) that online inspection of documents should be the default position. It has already made secondary legislation providing temporary flexibility for consultation and publicity requirements for planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) and for environmental impact assessment development under the TCPA in relation to environmental statements.

This statement makes clear, for the regimes addressed below, how the Government expect local authorities, applicants and the Mayor of London to meet the requirements for making documents available for inspection by the public whilst social distancing restrictions apply. Everyone involved in the planning process is expected to engage proactively in the move to online inspection of documents and to consider the practical measures needed to ensure fair participation. When it becomes possible for documents to be made available for inspection in public buildings again, then the Government expect this to be done as soon as practicable.

Compulsory purchase orders (CPOs)

There are requirements in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 for newspaper and site notices to provide details of a place where copies of CPOs and associated maps can be inspected, both prior to submission of the CPO to the confirming authority and when it is confirmed. Provisions in secondary legislation requiring inspection of documents are similar, and in some cases require documents to be provided on request. It is the Government’s view that these legislative requirements can be satisfied by the acquiring authority making a copy of the order and map available for inspection on a website. Hard copies of documents should be provided by the acquiring authority on request. The Government have published updated planning guidance in relation to the compulsory purchase process which can be viewed at: https://www. gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-compulsory-purchase-guidance.

Development consent orders (DCOs)

The Planning Act 2008, relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIP), requires that at the pre-application stage the statement of community consultation must be made available for inspection. At the post-consent stage, where a development consent order grants authority to acquire compulsorily an interest in land, the Act requires that a copy of the DCO must be made available for inspection.

It is the Government’s view that these requirements can be met by making documents available for inspection online. They expect applicants to take reasonable steps to ensure that anyone wishing to view the documentation can find these documents online. Hard copies should be made available by the applicant on request.

For the NSIP regime there are other provisions in secondary legislation relating to consultation and publicity requirements. The Government intend to bring forward secondary legislation shortly to replace temporarily the requirement for documents to be made available for inspection in a place, with a requirement for documents to be made available online.

Planning appeals

For planning appeals there are provisions in secondary legislation for consultation and publicity requirements, and the Government are considering whether these should be amended to enable more to be undertaken by digital processes, similar to the flexibilities already brought in for planning applications under the TCPA. The Government expect local planning authorities, appellants, the planning inspectorate and other parties to be proactive in their use of digital processes for consultation and publicity.

Local development documents

When preparing local development documents, local planning authorities are required to make certain documents available for inspection at their principal office, and other places that they consider appropriate, and provide copies of the plan or strategy to a person that requests one. In addition, local planning authorities must publish the document on their website. The Government intend to bring forward secondary legislation shortly to remove temporarily the requirement for local planning authorities to make these documents available for inspection at their offices and other places, as well as the requirement for these documents to be provided on request. Local planning authorities will need to ensure that these documents are made available on their website.

Spatial development strategies

The Business and Planning Bill amends the provisions in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 that require the Mayor of London to make the spatial development strategy (SDS) available for physical inspection at certain locations and to provide a copy on request.

The Bill will remove these requirements provided that the Mayor makes the current SDS available by appropriate electronic means. The Mayor will be required to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State on arrangements that may be appropriate for those who do not have internet access.

There are also similar provisions in secondary legislation that apply for the Mayor of London and combined authorities who have been conferred the power to make a spatial development strategy. The Government intend to bring forward secondary legislation shortly to temporarily disapply requirements for these documents to be made available for inspection at their offices and enable them to be made available online.

Extending development consents

The Business and Planning Bill includes a provision to extend certain planning permissions and consents under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. There are already established routes to make changes to DCOs and it is the Government’s view that these routes can be used to extend commencement periods in certain circumstances. Developers can submit applications for non-material or material changes to the relevant Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can also make a material change to a DCO in exceptional circumstances. The Government expect developers to take proactive steps to ensure that applications to extend DCOs are submitted in sufficient time and the Government will actively engage with any such applications.

[HCWS316]

Westferry Printworks Development

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I think there is one thing in this debate upon which we can all agree: that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) made a fantastic, powerful and personal maiden speech. He is right to say that, when we are first elected to this place, we sit in the Tea Room and talk to each other about the relative merits of our constituencies. He will know that, regrettably, when we turn to talking about majorities, size really does matter.

I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Henley (John Howell), for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), for East Devon (Simon Jupp), for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for Guildford (Angela Richardson), for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) and for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) on their powerful contributions to the debate.

Let me be clear: we reject any allegations of impropriety either in relation to the appeal at Westferry Printworks or more widely. Today, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, our Department has published the documents on the record regarding the Westferry decision. They are now in the public domain for the full scrutiny of Members and the wider public. Those documents show what we knew from the outset: that no improper action was undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

As my right hon. Friend made clear in his remarks, it is far from uncommon for Ministers to disagree with a planning inspector’s recommendation. The involvement of Ministers in the planning system is clearly guided by both the ministerial code and the guidance set out by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That guidance details the duty to behave fairly and to approach matters before us with an open mind. As my right hon. Friend has made clear abundantly again and again, the reason for granting planning permission for the proposed development at the Westferry Printworks are detailed in his letter of 14 January.

[Mr Betts]

The Minister is quite right: it is not unusual for the Secretary of State or another Minister to make a planning decision, even in contradiction of a planning inspector’s recommendations. Can he think of another example where a Secretary of State has made a planning decision and then ruled his own decision to be unlawful?

[Christopher Pincher]

There are such examples. Indeed, I remember that the former Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Prescott, overruled his own Planning Inspectorate in order to build a tower like the one proposed at Westferry. The reasons for the granting of permission are fully set out in the sealed order of 21 May. As my right hon. Friend has stated, and as I will reiterate, there was absolutely no impropriety in this case. It is a fundamental legal right that planning decisions may be challenged, and it is by no means unusual for that to happen.

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

I will answer the question that I think the hon. Gentleman is about to ask and save him the trouble. In the last three years, there have been 26 challenges made to Ministers. Of those, 16 were withdrawn or successfully defended, eight were conceded or lost, and two are yet to be concluded.

On the question that many Members have raised regarding the meetings between my right hon. Friend and Mr Desmond, it is a matter of public record that the Secretary of State met the scheme’s proposer, the chairman of Northern & Shell, in November 2019. Ministers meet many people in the course of their duties —it has even been known for shadow Ministers occasionally to get out of the bubble and meet people—and my right hon. Friend has made it clear that that meeting was not planned. He did not discuss the case; Mr Desmond himself has said that. Indeed, my right hon. Friend advised his officials of Mr Desmond’s approach and of his own response, and at no time were his officials advising him that he should recuse himself from this matter.

I am sure that Mr Desmond is a very effective businessman, and I am sure that he is honestly and sincerely determined to see more homes built. I do not know Mr Desmond. I have not met him, but the Mayor of London has met him; he has been to dinner with Mr Desmond, yet has Sadiq Khan being arraigned before the north Croydon magistrate to answer his case? The Mayor of London took money from a Manchester tycoon who was prosecuted for putting people’s lives at risk—putting people’s lives at risk! Is the Mayor at risk of the wrath of the people’s tribunal sitting on the Opposition Front Bench? It does not appear so.

What about the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who enjoyed, apparently, a cosy Christmas chez Desmond? Will he be dragged before the Starmer “star chamber” to answer for any potential indiscretions he may have had over the turkey and the trimmings? The Leader of the Opposition, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, is remarkably silent on this matter: not a jot or tittle do we hear from him. There they sit, po-faced and prim, as if butter would not melt in their mouths, yet on housing their crimes are such that they should be blushing to the core; they should be as red in their face as they are in tooth and claw.

This House, the Gallery and the public, in so far as they are watching, can see this for what it really is: a tawdry charade to distract attention from their own party’s lamentable failure to decide the Westferry case themselves when they could have done so, and the dismal failure of the Mayor of London to build the homes that Londoners want and need. The crime, if there is one, is the failure of Sadiq Khan to build in four years what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister built in two years—his failure to deliver more than 322 homes on TfL land when he promised to deliver 10,000, a risible 3% success rate on his pledge. The truth is that they do not like the truth; they cannot handle the truth, and it is because of that failure that they have tabled this spurious motion today.

We make no apology for our bold ambition to build the homes that this country needs. My right hon. Friend and this Government were elected on a mandate to build a million new homes in this Parliament, and that is what we are going to do. We will build more affordable homes and boost the housing supply so that it comfortably meets and beats growing demand. We were elected on a mandate to champion and take up brownfield sites, so that neglected and abandoned land can be transformed into homes for people.

Let us be in no doubt that the Westferry Printworks development would have created hundreds of new, affordable homes, which would have helped our nation’s capital. We will build and build, and build again, to back the people who need homes in this country and in London. We will build for Britain as we emerge from this pandemic. The Secretary of State stands four-square behind that commitment, and we stand four-square behind him.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give a direction to Her Ministers to provide all correspondence, including submissions and electronic communications, involving Ministers and Special Advisers pertaining to the Westferry Printworks Development and the subsequent decision by the Secretary of State to approve its planning application at appeal to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The House is suspended for three minutes

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to help protect the green belt around London.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

The green belt is very important to all of us, and we continue to maintain strong protections for it through the national planning policy framework. It is clear that boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and where all other options have been examined.

[Theresa Villiers]

Does the Minister agree that if we are to protect the suburban environment, that means not just safeguarding the green belt but rejecting proposals for overdevelopment on non-green-belt sites like Victoria Quarter in New Barnet or the tube stations at High Barnet and Cockfosters, which are threatened with high-rise development that is entirely inappropriate for the surrounding suburban area?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that question. She is an assiduous campaigner for her constituents in Chipping Barnet. She will know that I cannot comment on any individual cases, but applications should be considered in accordance with the development plan. The Secretary of State asked the Mayor of London to pay regard to place in the siting of tall buildings, so where there are clusters of tall buildings, it may be more appropriate to site new tall buildings there than elsewhere. My right hon. Friend may, with advantage, take up that matter with the Mayor of London.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

What steps he has taken to improve the building safety programme.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this question. I would like to acknowledge the commemorations taking place in her constituency to mark the tragic loss of life from Grenfell Tower three years ago. In the present pandemic, the residents and others there managed to pay tribute and to commemorate with respect and care. I congratulate them on their efforts and my hon. Friend on all her unstinting work.

Building safety is a priority for this Government and for me personally. The Government recently announced the biggest change in a generation on building safety, to be delivered through the upcoming building safety Bill, together with, now, £1.6 billion of support for remediation of unsafe cladding. We will leave no stone unturned to ensure that residents are safe now and in the future.

[Felicity Buchan]

I would like to start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for lighting Parliament green last night for Grenfell.

I welcome the £1 billion additional funding for the remediation of non-ACM cladding, but, as we all know, it is not just a question of the money—it is about actually getting the work done. Will my right hon. Friend update me on what progress he expects within the next six months?

[Christopher Pincher]

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right to highlight the pace of implementation as being important. Registrations for the new building safety fund, which opened on 1 June, have now reached 458. I am pleased to say that the draft building safety Bill will be published soon for scrutiny, and remediation continues across the estate where it is needed, despite the covid-19 crisis. We are determined to do all we can to support residents.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]]

In remembering all those who lost their lives at Grenfell and the families and friends who are left behind, it is shocking that three years after Grenfell there are still 2,000 high-rise residential blocks that have dangerous cladding on them. The £1 billion building safety fund is welcome, but it will only remediate 600 of those blocks; it will do nothing to touch lower-rise residential accommodation, dangerous insulation and other fire safety defects, leaving thousands of people worried about their safety and their financial circumstances. Will the Minister go back to the Chancellor and put it to him that we now need a great deal more cash—the Select Committee says probably up to £15 billion—to ensure that fire safety defects are removed from all residential buildings within the next two years, which means five years after the Grenfell disaster?

[Christopher Pincher]

As I said in answer to the previous question, pace is crucial in this regard, which is why the Chancellor has made available in this financial year £1 billion to remediate those buildings that suffer from non-ACM cladding. That is on top of the £600 million that we have made available for ACM-clad buildings. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is going to be necessary for a great many buildings to be remediated. We would expect some of that funding to come forward from the building owners so that those who let or are leaseholders in the buildings do not fall liable for the funds. We believe that £1 billion, now, to get on with the job, will go a great deal along the way to make sure that buildings are made safe for their residents.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Three years on from the Grenfell disaster, when 72 people tragically lost their lives, 245 buildings are clad in dangerous ACM and at least 1,700 are clad in equally flammable material. If the remedial work continues at the same snail’s pace, it will take up to 39 years for the work to be completed, yet if someone wants a controversial billion-pound planning application approved, it seems that high-value chicken dinners get things done. Will the Minister advise the House as to what influence can be applied to quickly make all our high-rise buildings safe once and for all?

[Christopher Pincher]

First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place; this is the first time since he took up his shadow position that we have sparred across the Dispatch Box—

[Mike Amesbury]

Second.

[Christopher Pincher]

It is the first time that the hon. Gentleman and I have sparred across the Dispatch Box—that is correct, so let us hold on to that.

The hon. Gentleman was rather ungenerous: we have made £1.6 billion available to remediate the buildings that need it. Remediation work has begun or been completed on 95% of all social-sector buildings that had unsafe ACM cladding on them, and remediation work has begun or been completed on 40% of such buildings in the private sector, while the other 60% have their plans in train. We want these buildings to be made safe as quickly as possible. That is why we have put the money on the table, why we will press for action to be taken and why the buildings will be made safe under this Government.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

What steps the Government are taking to protect private renters facing financial difficulties as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

The Government have introduced measures to help tenants to continue to pay their rent; we are supporting workers by paying up to 80% of their wages; we have increased the amount available to welfare claimants; and we have raised the local housing allowance rate to the 30th percentile of market rents in each area.

[Dr Huq]

I thank the Minister for his response, but on the day that Marcus Rashford, a 22 year-old footballer, wrote to all of us in the House to raise the spectre of family impoverishment under coronavirus, does he recognise the fact that a substantial proportion of private renters have dependent children—they are not all bedsit-land stereotypes? Will he bring forward immediately the plans to end section-21 evictions? The Conservatives are the party of the family; if people are losing their jobs already, they should protect families and homes now.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Lady for her question. We have committed to bring forward legislation to enhance renters’ security, and that includes the abolition of section-21 evictions, but we will do it in a safe, sensible and sustained way. In the interim, the Government have worked with the judiciary, legal representatives and the advice sector on arrangements to ensure that courts are better able to address those tenants who are in difficult positions, and we have spent £7 billion of public money through the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that people can get the help that they need. We are working with the National Residential Landlords Association. It advises me that private rented sector rents have fallen by about 1% in the latest round of tenancy renewals. We are working hard across the space, particularly with the private rented sector, to make sure people get the help that they deserve.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the remarks by hon. Members about the victims and survivors of Grenfell.

Today the Treasury Select Committee says that freelancers, new starters and many others have fallen through gaps in the financial support schemes. Local housing allowance does not even cover average rents. Anyone with no recourse to public funds cannot even get universal credit. Over a million people are struggling with rent, but this is fixable. Will the Government today heed the calls of Shelter, Citizens Advice, Generation Rent, numerous charities and building societies and the Labour party, act now and prevent people from losing their homes in an evictions crisis in the autumn?

[Christopher Pincher]

As I have made clear, we have worked hard to protect tenants from the prospect of eviction and also to ensure that they have the funds to live their lives. That is why we introduced the furlough system, which provides 80% of people’s incomes. That is why we have increased the LHA. It is why we have made available to local authorities £500 million to help those households facing crisis. The prospectus of the hon. Lady, which is simply to kick the can down the road and to pile up costs for people who may not be able to afford them, is not the right one. I think she should go away and think again.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the adequacy of funding for local authorities during the covid-19 outbreak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

What criteria his Department uses to determine eligibility for the new building safety fund.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

The eligibility criteria for the building safety fund are set out in the prospectus that was published in May—as Members know, the fund was launched on 1 June. Where buildings are not eligible, our guidance is clear that building safety is the responsibility of building owners, and we have given expert advice on a range of safety issues and measures that can provide clarity.

[Lucy Powell [V]]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has explained, the fund is not big enough for the demand, and many buildings in Manchester are ineligible for it. Last week, I met residents of Skyline Central 1, whose building will not be eligible because the freeholder has already begun works on the property, yet the freeholder is passing all those costs on to leaseholders, to the tune of £20,000-plus each. So what more will the Government do to ensure that leaseholders are not bearing the brunt of removing dangerous cladding from their buildings?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Lady for her question, and I know she is campaigning doughtily on behalf of her constituents. As I have said, we have been absolutely clear that where those buildings are already being remediated—where remediation was under way before 11 March—residents, leaseholders, should first seek to recover the costs from the owner, and the owner should do this from the developer of the buildings where the defects are found. The point of the fund is to get the remediation work under way quickly. I can quite understand the points she has raised and I am happy to talk to her further about that case.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

What plans he has to support the regeneration of towns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)]

What plans he has to help support people to buy their own home.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

First Homes, our new flagship home ownership programme, will discount homes by at least 30% for local people and first-time buyers, reducing income and deposit requirements. We recently closed our consultation on First Homes, and we will publish our response very soon. This will add to other Government-backed schemes, including Help to Buy, which have supported over 627,000 households since 2010.

[Rob Roberts [V]]

Around this time last year, a friend of mine purchased a property as a first-time buyer. On a purchase price of £275,000, he paid £3,700 in land transaction tax, which is the Welsh equivalent of stamp duty. Had he completed his purchase just eight miles away, across the border in England, he would not have paid any stamp duty at all. I commend my right hon. Friend, along with the Treasury, for this policy to assist first-time buyers, but will he join me in calling on the Welsh Government to raise the threshold for first-time buyers to £300,000 to mirror England so that young people are not incentivised to move out of my beautiful constituency?

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend is right; Delyn is a beautiful constituency. He is also right to point out that stamp duty or land transaction tax in Wales is a devolved matter. The Welsh Government are not particularly successful at building houses, including social homes. I think they have built fewer than 140 in the last five years, so the message to the Welsh Government is: could do a little better. But I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that in England, stamp duty relief means that 80% of first-time buyers will pay no stamp duty at all, and cuts the price for 95% of those who do pay the tax. This relief has benefited over 500,000 people since its introduction three years ago.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Planning Process: Probity

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, if he will make a statement on the need to maintain public confidence in the probity of the planning process and his quasi-judicial role in these matters.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

The Government are committed to maintaining public confidence in the probity of the planning process at all levels, including the Secretary of State’s role in deciding called-in planning applications and recovered appeals. Rightly, Parliament has, through the planning Acts, delegated to local planning authorities the powers to determine things at their level. However, Parliament has also created provisions whereby a small proportion of cases are determined by central Government.

The written ministerial statement of June 2008 sets out clear criteria for the use of the powers. For example, some decisions are recovered because of the quantum of housing they involve and thus their potential effect on the Government’s objectives for sustainable communities; others are recovered because of non-determination by the local authority. The involvement of Ministers in the planning system is a very long-established process that is clearly guided by both the published ministerial code and the guidance published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on planning propriety, which focuses on the duty on Ministers to behave fairly and to approach matters before them with an open mind.

The vast majority of planning decisions are determined at a local level by local planning authorities. However, as I have said, the planning system provides for decisions to be sent to Ministers for determination, including on the grounds that they involve developments of major importance. In fact, Ministers were involved in 26 planning decisions out of a total of 447,000 planning cases last year. The small number of cases that are referred to planning Ministers for determination are often among the most controversial in the planning system—for example, the 500 dwellings in the Oxford green belt that were recently allowed, and the 500 dwellings in the York green belt that were refused.

Given the nature of the cases before them, it is not uncommon for Ministers to determine against the planning inspector’s recommendation, as has happened in around 20% of cases in recent years. In conclusion, I stress that each planning decision is taken fairly and on its own merits.

[Steve Reed]

The Secretary of State will not have the public confidence that he needs to overhaul the planning system until we have full transparency over his unlawful decision to force through the Westferry development. He gave consent to the scheme on 14 January, in the teeth of opposition from Tower Hamlets Council and his own planning inspector, who both considered the scheme oversized and lacking in affordable housing. When Tower Hamlets took up a judicial review to challenge the Secretary of State, he took the extraordinary step of admitting that his decision was unlawful because of apparent bias. That meant that he avoided publishing in open court all correspondence revealing the true reasons behind his decision. Will the Minister tell us what that apparent bias was?

The developer, Northern & Shell, is owned by the billionaire Conservative party donor Richard Desmond. Mr Desmond sat next to the Secretary of State at a Conservative party fund-raising dinner just two months previously, and he admits that they discussed the scheme. The ministerial code requires Ministers to act with integrity; did the Secretary of State disclose his conversation with Mr Desmond to the Department before he granted permission? As the circumstances clearly raise a question of bias, why did the Secretary of State not immediately recuse himself from taking the decision?

The Secretary of State gave the scheme consent one day before a community infrastructure levy came into force; did he know that he was helping Mr Desmond to dodge a potential £50 million tax bill? Will the Secretary of State now disclose what contact he or his representatives had with the developers about that tax?

By an astonishing coincidence, just two weeks after the Secretary of State took his decision Mr Desmond made a generous donation of £12,000 to the Conservative party. This sequence of events raises grave concerns about cash for favours. If he wants to restore trust, the Secretary of State must immediately publish all documents and all correspondence relating to this decision. The public need reassurance that the integrity of the planning process cannot be auctioned off at Conservative party fund-raising dinners.

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Gentleman’s comments remind me of the adage, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try and try again,” because I think, Mr Speaker, that this is his sixth attempt at an urgent question on this matter. I do not deny—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We do not discuss urgent questions, and I am the judge of what is right and wrong on the numbers, so we will leave that for today. Mr Pincher, I have the greatest respect for your job, and you need to have the same for mine.

[Christopher Pincher]

Indeed, Mr Speaker. I was simply going to observe that the hon. Gentleman has shown great persistence, although after listening to his questions I do not think there was much in them that was new or different. He asked four fundamental questions, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry. That is questioning the judgment of decisions we take in a meeting on whether there was something different. You were not present at that, Mr Pincher, and I do not believe that you are aware of our discussions—and if you are, you should not be. So I think we can leave that for now.

[Christopher Pincher]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very happy to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, and certainly never question your judgment.

The hon. Gentleman asked first about the nature of the decision of the Secretary of State for a redetermination. The Secretary of State, with the support of the Mayor of Tower Hamlets and others in the local planning authority, believed the best course of action was for a swift redetermination of this particular issue. The way to achieve that, technically in law, is to accept the action that was brought by the local authority to the court. That is why the Secretary of State made the decision that he did.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Secretary of State acted properly and with propriety in making clear to the Department all discussions that he has had with applicants; yes, he did. At all times he has disclosed any conversations that he has had with applicants.

The hon. Gentleman also requests me to describe my right hon. Friend’s relationship with the applicant. My right hon. Friend has no relationship with the applicant, so that question is irrelevant. Both the applicant and the local authority have asked my right hon. Friend to make a site visit. My right hon. Friend, in discussion with officials in our Department, weighed up the pros and cons of such a site visit and decided against.

As for the decision on 14 January, which is outlined publicly and which the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members can see online, that decision is all very clear. There were no discussions about the CIL issue between my right hon. Friend and the applicant. My right hon. Friend has been very clear about his involvement with the applicant. I do not think anything further needs to be added.

The applicant has, I think, paid for tickets to a Conservative party event. That is apparently where the funds came from. Ministers have no knowledge of funds provided to political parties through donations or through payment for tickets. These are spendings made by donors which go to parties of all persuasions. They are declared in the proper and usual way. None of this is known to Ministers, and none of it is discussed by Ministers. It certainly was not discussed on this occasion.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

When it comes to planning, nowhere offers greater opportunity for house building, of all tenure types, than here in the capital, yet a total lack of ambition by the Labour-run City Hall leaves a shortfall. What steps can my right hon. Friend outline to get the planning system working in London?

[Christopher Pincher]

One reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has called in the Mayor’s plan is that we believe it to be insufficient; it has a paucity of ambition for the sorts of houses and the number of houses we need in London. By his own admission, the Mayor is missing his own target. The reason why this particular application came before my right hon. Friend was the failure of the local authority to properly determine upon it. He came to the conclusion that it should go ahead because of the number of homes and of affordable homes that were going to be built—the sorts of homes the Mayor of London is not building.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

This is like the Dominic Cummings affair and we have a Minister defending the indefensible. When the Secretary of State personally approves a planning application a day before the deadline, which saves the developer £40 million of fees in infrastructure payments, it raises serious questions. When it transpires that the developer then donates to the Tory party, to the public this matter simply stinks. Worse, the Secretary of State’s actions overruled the planning decision of the local council and it was against his own Planning Inspectorate advice. Why did he think he knew better? Why do the Minister and the Secretary of State not think it would be better to have more affordable homes funded? Surely they must agree that a multi-millionaire funding a £1 billion development helps fund future infrastructure for the greater good. Why was the Secretary of State content with his decision until legal action was raised by Tower Hamlets Council? Why do the Government think it is acceptable for the Secretary of State to remain in place after an unlawful decision, which he admits shows apparent bias? This is a party whose former Prime Minister and current Prime Minister once auctioned off a tennis match with themselves for £160,000. Does the Minister understand what these fundraising events look like to the public when other decisions then get made that seem to favour those who attend the events? For a Tory Government, it is one rule for them and one rule for another. Fortunately for us in Scotland, many people in Scotland now see independence as a better option, because nothing the Minister can say gives confidence in this place.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I said, it is not unusual for Ministers to look at and call in significant applications, and for them to come to a different conclusion from that of the Planning Inspectorate. My right hon. Friend’s reasons for his decision were clearly outlined in his decision letter of 14 January. He makes it clear that one reason for his decision to allow the application was the very significant number of homes that were going to be built as a result of it, including affordable homes. I might say in response to the hon. Gentleman that in the same week, in an application to the same authority, my right hon. Friend came to a very different conclusion when he refused a planning application made by and supported by the local authority to demolish the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, the one that created Big Ben and the Liberty bell. The local authority, the well-known tribunes of the people in Tower Hamlets, wanted to demolish it and build a luxury boutique hotel. My right hon. Friend will always come down on an application based on its merits and in the interests of the people. That is what he did on this occasion and that is what he will always do.

[Mr Speaker]

Just to help the House, I should say that I am expecting to run this until 11.05 am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

In the interests of transparency, may I say that the Select Committee has not considered this matter? Last night I did receive a letter from the mayor of Tower Hamlets, but the Committee has not given consideration to that. Does the Minister agree that such matters as this are best dealt with when all the facts are in the public domain, otherwise judgments will be formed along the basis of supposition and conjecture, and, were the Committee to make a request to the Secretary of State, would he be willing to provide us with all relevant documentation so that the Committee could give proper, careful consideration to these matters, based on the facts that are available?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I remind him that the decision of the Secretary of State, as I have already said, is in the public domain. The application is a live one, and documentation will be published in the usual way. We always take seriously, and consider weightily, requests from the Committee, and I am sure that we will happily consider this one. However, my right hon. Friend has published his decision, it is a very clear decision, and all documents will be published in the usual way, as they are through live planning applications.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

While the Conservative Mayor in the West Midlands is getting homes built by making the best use of brownfield sites, the Labour Mayor in London keeps missing his housing targets and the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester proposes ripping up the green belt against the wishes of my constituents. Is it only the Conservatives that are able to get it right on housing?

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I speak as a local councillor. We are regularly reminded to abide by our code of conduct, based on the Nolan principles, including integrity, accountability, openness and honesty, and declare personal or pecuniary interests, be them real or perceived, in decision making. With that in mind, is it a coincidence that Mr Desmond made a substantial donation to the Conservative party just days after the Secretary of State rushed through permission for the Westferry development, against the advice of his own planning inspector, and one day before Mr Desmond would have become liable for a £50 million tax bill?

[Christopher Pincher]

I do not know when Mr Desmond made donations or, in this case, payments for tickets to a Conservative party event. I believe he has donated to other political parties, including the Labour party. He is clearly a very generous man. I do not know that, and nor does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because we have no knowledge of those political donations when we are making planning decisions. My right hon. Friend has laid out very clearly his reasons for his decision, which he has made honestly and fairly. He is mindful, as am I, of his responsibilities according to the ministerial code and MHCLG propriety codes. We will always make decisions fairly, based on their merits and in the interests of the people.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

One way we can ensure trust in the probity of the planning process is to ensure that it relates to the needs of people on the ground in communities. I was saved by social housing. Were it not for social housing, I would not be here. How can we ensure that the planning process that local authorities follow respects the communities that they represent and, more importantly, that the standards of social housing are improved? I know that this is an issue that the Minister finds very important.

[Christopher Pincher]

On the question of social housing, and indeed affordable housing, we are committed to increasing the numbers of affordable homes and social rented homes. It is worth while noting that in the last year alone this Government have built more council homes than the last Labour Government did in the entire 13 years of their history. My hon. Friend has an absolute guarantee that we will work, as will Mayor Street, for the interests of local people, building the homes that they want.

My hon. Friend also makes a point about the planning system. I am keen to ensure that the system acts with speed and transparency, and in the interest of local people. He can always be assured that the Conservative Government have that interest at heart.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Did major Tory party donor Mr Desmond ask to sit next to the Secretary of State at the Conservative party dinner, on a table where—by mere coincidence, according to accounts—other developers involved in the scheme were seated? Mr Desmond himself has admitted that they discussed the scheme over dinner, but the Secretary of State says that they did not. Who, out of the two, is misleading the British people?

[Mr Speaker]

We must be very careful about the word “misleading”. I am sure that no Member of this House would ever mislead anybody.

[Christopher Pincher]

My right hon. Friend has been absolutely clear: the applicants raised the issue of Westferry with him at that dinner, my right hon. Friend made it clear that he could not discuss planning matters and would not discuss that planning matter, and the issue was closed. I have no idea what Mr Desmond asked for at that dinner, where he wished to be seated or who made the decision on where he was seated, because Ministers in my Department and others do not know what donations or funds are being spent by donors on political parties. There is a firewall, quite properly, between the two.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

I completely agree on the need to maintain public trust in the planning process. I have the honour to represent the historic market town of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and one concern people have is that our historic buildings and heritage are not always protected in the planning process. What steps is the Ministry taking to ensure that buildings of importance, such as the Guildhall in Newcastle-under-Lyme, are protected in the planning system, in the public interest?

[Mr Speaker]

I liked the last bit of the question.

[Christopher Pincher]

Heritage assets are vital to us all, and we want to ensure that they are protected. The Guildhall is clearly of great interest to my hon. Friend and his constituents. One reason why my right hon. Friend made the decision he did with respect to the Whitechapel bell foundry was its huge historic interest to the people of Tower Hamlets and to people in this place. His decision there was the right one, and I think all his decisions have been right.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]]

To recap, we have a planning decision that is unlawful, weaved through guidance on tall buildings, downplayed the heritage impact on the Greenwich world heritage site, increased the intensification of the housing units by 113% at the same time as reducing the proportion of affordable units by 40%, was taken on a timescale that exempted the developer from making contributions and saw a substantial donation to Tory party coffers. Does the Minister not understand how bad this looks? Why is the Secretary of State not coming to the House to explain why he sought to exercise his powers in the manner in which he did? Will he now ensure that all the documents and correspondence germane to this decision are released, so that people can understand for themselves the nature of the apparent bias in this case?

[Christopher Pincher]

My right hon. Friend’s reasons for his determination are quite clear—as I have said already, they are laid out in his decision letter of 14 January, which is open to public scrutiny and, indeed, legal challenge. My right hon. Friend made a decision in favour of local homes for local people, including more affordable homes. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, when it comes to tall buildings, other Ministers in my right hon. Friend’s position have made decisions in their favour, including John Prescott, who in 2003 accepted a building for 750 asylum seekers that was particularly tall. My right hon. Friend will always act in the interests of local people and will act fairly, proportionately and properly.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I welcome the additional investment in the affordable homes programme secured by my right hon. Friend in the Budget in March—a scheme responsible for the delivery of almost half a million new homes since 2010. What assurances can the Minister give me that developers will continue to be held to their obligations to provide affordable units within residential developments?

[Christopher Pincher]

We have a very effective affordable homes programme under way. As a result of the work of this Government and previous Conservative Governments, we have built something like 450,000 affordable homes in the last 10 years. We should compare that with the 399,000 built by the previous Labour Government during their nine years in office, at a time when apparently the economy was rosy and they had lots of money to spend. The Chancellor announced at the Budget £12 billion for the next affordable homes programme. We will make sure that the tenure and geographic mix is right for local communities and that it builds affordable homes and the homes that people want and need.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Given that the Prime Minister pushed through the original scheme for the same developer when he was Mayor of London, did No. 10 have any involvement in events or conversations leading to the Secretary of State’s unlawful decision to grant approval?

[Christopher Pincher]

With respect to the hon. Lady, she is wrong. That was an entirely different application. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was determined to leave a legacy in London of more homes—more of the right homes in the right places—so that people could live the lives they wanted to live. In comparison, the present Mayor of London is missing his own targets and the Government’s targets. It is the reason we have had to call in his plan—to demonstrate that he must do better.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his responses on this very important topic. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) for raising his concerns about the green belt, which I share. With public engagement in the planning process at an all-time low, because meetings are now held online or not at all, what advice is the Minister giving to planning authorities to maximise public probity and prevent any decision from being steamrollered through?

[Christopher Pincher]

As I said in my opening remarks, planning is essentially a local matter. The vast majority of local planning decisions are made locally. Sometimes they are appealed against to the Planning Inspectorate, but only on a small number occasions will those applications come to a Secretary of State. I am very keen to ensure that the planning system is swift, transparent and reflects and adheres to local needs, and I shall make sure that my hon. Friend’s comments and concerns are properly reflected in all our considerations about planning processes.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Campaigners in Warrington North have been battling to save Peel Hall from development for over three decades. With planning law already weighted so heavily in favour of development, what assurances can the Minister give that the developer cannot simply make a substantial donation to the Conservative party to subvert the process and that residents will get the fair hearing they deserve and can have confidence in that process?

[Christopher Pincher]

The planning law in this country is very clear, as the hon. Lady knows. I suggest that she go and read it.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the probity of the planning system has been enhanced by the Secretary of State’s decision to proceed with South Oxfordshire District Council’s local plan and that the holding of an examination in public online is a very good, transparent way of proceeding?

[Christopher Pincher]

Virtual proceedings are an effective way of ensuring that the light of public interest shines upon planning decisions, and I think the decision made in respect of South Oxfordshire was the right one. As I have said before, we will act always with fairness and probity, but we will also act to make sure that the Government’s objectives to build more homes in the right places—the sorts of homes people want and need—are met.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

When I was elected to the council, one of the first things I did was sit on a planning committee. Does the Minister agree that transparency in that quasi-judicial role is really important, especially when constituents still feel there is a lot of secrecy around the planning process? Does he believe that there needs to be that full, transparent process in order not to undermine the planning system for our constituents?

[Christopher Pincher]

I certainly agree that transparency in planning is important. That is why the decisions that Ministers make, if they are involved in those planning decisions, are properly published and open to full public scrutiny, as they have been in the case that the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) has raised.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Like the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), I sat on my local planning committee and in my training I learned that only the most contentious of applications, or those of national significance, come before the Minister. We have an example on our doorstep, just over the road, where the 50-storey St George’s Tower was granted by John Prescott against the wishes of the local council. Can the Minister clarify why certain applications require a ministerial decision?

[Christopher Pincher]

There are some applications which, because of the number of homes, will involve a ministerial decision. Other applications, which are timed out because the local authority has not been able to come to a determination and the applicant appeals, also come before a Minister. That happens in a small number of cases. It happened in the Westferry case, but I remind the House, because I think it bears repetition, that the issue came before the Secretary of State because the local authority failed to make a determination. It came before the previous Secretary of State in the early part of last year and went through the normal adjudication process in MHCLG.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

In my constituency, the local planning authority has just rejected a planning application aimed at reducing the number of affordable housing units. What confidence can my constituents have that the Government will not overrule that decision? Most importantly, should Ministers who are making planning decisions not be under the same obligation as local councillors working on planning decisions to declare personal and prejudicial interests?

[Christopher Pincher]

Ministers are obliged to adhere to the ministerial code and the MHCLG proprietary and ethics policy. We will build the homes that we think people need. We are going to spend £12 billion on the affordable homes programme to ensure that the right sort of homes are built in the right places. It is for the local authority, whichever local authority it is, to determine need and to bid for some of that AHP money if it wishes to build socially rented homes. Homes England will also take bids from applicants to build homes according to the land supply of local authorities. Let us see what the hon. Lady’s local authority achieves. I trust that it will build the right sorts of homes for the people of Bath.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am now suspending the House for three minutes.

Energy Performance of Buildings Regulations 2012, No. 3118: Consultation

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I wish to update the House on the publication of a consultation on changes to the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 (SI2012/3118).



The United Kingdom has set in law a target to bring its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 to help tackle climate change. Heating and powering buildings currently accounts for 40% of the UK’s total energy usage. We must ensure that buildings are constructed to high standards of energy efficiency and that the regime for regulating the energy performance of buildings is robust.



This consultation seeks views on proposals to amend existing requirements for inspecting heating and air conditioning systems in order to improve the regime and contribute to carbon emission reductions and energy efficiency savings. The new requirements aim to strengthen the effectiveness of the regime by increasing the threshold for inspection to focus on larger systems. It further aims to improve the regime’s impact by broadening the scope of inspection to include combined heating and ventilation systems and combined air conditioning and ventilation systems.



The Government propose to retain their domestic arrangements (i.e. take the option of alternative measures). This means continuing to provide consumers with the advice necessary to make informed decisions on the energy efficiency of their heating systems and widening the scope to include combined heating and ventilation systems. The United Kingdom boiler market is the biggest in the world and has some of the most experienced manufacturers and installers. The United Kingdom’s equivalence reports, which are required to demonstrate that the domestic policy achieves the aims intended by the changes to the regulations, have demonstrated that the carbon savings attributable to the UK’s alternative measures were greater than those that would have been achieved through inspection. One of the key elements of the domestic regime is Boiler Plus whose standards are expected to help reduce carbon emissions by up to 2 MtCO₂e^[1] in Carbon Budget 4 (2023-2027)^[2] and 3.2 MtCO₂e in Carbon Budget 5 (2028-2032)^[3] , while enabling consumers to heat homes at a lower cost.



The consultation also proposes to amend the inspection regime for air conditioning systems, increasing the threshold and widening the scope to include combined air conditioning and ventilation systems, bringing with it the benefits of a stronger regime set out above.



These measures are only part of our journey towards a cleaner, greener built environment. The Government are determined that we will be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it, and improving the energy performance of our buildings will be a key factor in tackling climate change, achieving clean growth and safeguarding our planet for the future.



This written ministerial statement covers England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to the inspection of heating systems. It covers England and Wales in respect of the proposed changes to air conditioning inspections. The devolved Administrations are considering similar changes.



The consultation document can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/energy-performance-of-buildings-changes-to-theenergy-performance-of-buildings-regulations-2012-no-3118.



I am depositing a copy of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.

^[1] A metric measure used to compare the emissions from different greenhouse gases basedupon their global warming potential (GWP).

^[2] 4^th carbon budget (2023 to 2027) 1,950 MtCO₂e.

^[3] 5^th carbon budget (2028 to 2032)1,725 MtCO₂e.

[HCWS243]

Local Government Responsibilities: Public Services

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

May I first congratulate and thank hon. Members across the House for their valuable and important contributions to the debate? They have been largely co-operative and collaborative at a time of extraordinary emergency for our country.

I am sorry that I was not here at the beginning of the debate to hear the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall); like the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), I was in a Westminster Hall debate discussing the Greater Manchester spatial framework. It is a great pleasure to have the chance to close the debate.

I join my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in reiterating the Government’s unwavering support for local authorities across the country in responding to the covid-19 emergency. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I pay particular tribute to frontline staff and other council officers for their tireless efforts in reassuring residents, protecting the elderly and most vulnerable, and helping keep the public safe. Let me assure the House that the Government will continue to work hand in hand with local partners, including councils and local resilience forums, to assist in this vital work and ensure that communities receive the support and help they need during this unprecedented and challenging time.

Hon. Members across the House described powerfully the incredible work that their local communities and local public services are doing. Let me say, on behalf of the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, how grateful we are for all the tireless work that people are already doing. I am particularly conscious of the vital contribution of local voluntary organisations, and I pay particular tribute to them, as other Members did. I was struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) had to say about the support the local volunteer organisation The Bus Shelter is providing.

Our responsibility in Government is to knit that work together into a national programme to ensure that all communities and all vulnerable people, wherever they may be, have access to the right support at the right time, and we will do that. We will take every step necessary to support local communities, local authorities, all public services and the myriad volunteers who are coming forward to help, as my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger) made clear.

We know councils need assurance from the Government that they will have the funding they need to play their crucial role in the coronavirus response, especially in providing social care services to those in greatest need, as a number of Members on both sides of the House have said. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear, we will do whatever it takes—whatever it takes—to respond effectively. That includes making sure public services, including vital council services, have the money they need to respond. The Chancellor announced last week that £5 billion has been made available for the NHS, and more money has been made available for other public services, such as the half a million pounds made available to local authorities, with more to come if necessary.

We are urgently agreeing a funding package for councils, and we will make further announcements as soon as possible.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said earlier that the Government will make sure that, whatever social care and the NHS need, they will get it. Will the Minister for Housing repeat that? That is an important thing to say. It is not just the NHS that needs funding; social care needs it, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. I will come on to talk about social care, but we will certainly be giving those who work in social care the help they need to contend with this crisis.

These measures, which follow on from the Budget and from the Chancellor’s announcement last night, amount to over £330 billion in financial support, which, if I may say gently, is more than just drip-feeding into the system; it is a significant amount of money. The Government are prepared to do whatever it takes to protect the economy, our NHS, our local services and our local authorities in weathering this storm.

[Helen Hayes]

Will the Minister specifically address the loss in core income that councils will experience if business rates revenue collapses? I know the Government have announced large-scale support, much of which will be channelled through local authorities to meet specific needs arising from the pandemic, but the threat to our councils is bigger than that—it is to their core budget. The Government have made councils reliant on business rates revenue in recent years, and it may now drain away from them.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her further intervention. I know and understand the point she is making, and we have already made funds available to local authorities. The Chancellor, in his Budget speech, made clear the support we want to give. He made further announcements yesterday and, if she is prepared to bear with the Government a little longer, I suspect further announcements will be made as the situation evolves.

As the Under-Secretary of State made clear in his opening statement, this funding is in addition to extending SSP and a range of other measures by the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Jim McMahon]

Local authority base budgets are based on an assessment of council tax collection rates. If people are made redundant or if they move on to statutory sick pay, they will clearly not be able to afford their rent, let alone their council tax. We expect councils to withhold any enforcement action, because that is the right, moral thing to do, but surely the Government will provide compensation to protect the base income of those councils, and surely they must now consider whether people should have the protection of a council tax holiday, too.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As the Chancellor made clear, we will do whatever is necessary to stand behind our public services, our local authorities and our volunteers to get through this crisis. More announcements will be made in this fast-moving situation, so I ask him to bear with the Government in that regard.

As hon. Members will also be aware, yesterday, my Department announced £3.2 million in initial emergency funding to help rough sleepers or those at risk of rough sleeping to self-isolate to prevent the spread of this virus. The Under-Secretary of State, the homelessness Minister, made that point in his opening remarks; I just wanted to reiterate it to ensure that colleagues who have come into the Chamber more recently have heard it.

A number of Members from across the House raised the question of whether the Government have provided sufficient funding. The first point I would make—I have made it already—is that this situation is changing every day. The Government are responding at pace to the evolving challenges and working closely with the Local Government Association and other local authority representatives to understand the effects of covid-19 on the delivery of statutory services, including social care. The second point is to stress that the announcements that we have made so far, including those from the Chancellor last night, do not signal the end of the Government’s response; they signal its beginning. We stand ready to do more and we will go further as necessary.

A number of colleagues raised the question of our social care workforce, including those who care for the elderly and vulnerable in care homes and in their own homes. Building on our existing strong local relationships, the NHS and local authorities are working with care providers to make sure that people receive the specialised care and support they need during this outbreak. Councils will map out all care and support plans to prioritise people who are at the highest risk and will contact all registered providers in their local area to facilitate plans for mutual aid, and they will do this at pace.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Christopher Pincher]

I will give way one more time, because I appreciate that the statement is to come.

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the Minister. This morning, in a conference call with the leader of Birmingham City Council, the biggest council in Europe, we discussed this exact thing. Currently in social care and across care homes in the city of Birmingham—I imagine it is the same everywhere—they simply do not have the personal protective equipment to do the job that they need to be doing. I was asked to raise that directly with the Government and press them on it, because people are being put in harm’s way.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that point. Let me reassure her. We understand the point about social care providers and PPE. I think 7 million—I quote from memory—face masks are being made available to careworkers. At least 300 masks will be provided to care homes or care home providers to ensure that this necessary and essential piece of kit is available to them. If for whatever reason the normal supplier is unable to provide the kit, the national supply disruption response number is a way for providers to find other suppliers or receive an emergency parachute drop of those masks. I should also say that, although we would ordinarily expect those sorts of workers to have things such as aprons and gloves, we will do whatever we can to ensure that whatever they need is available. We are working with local authorities and care providers to make sure that those PPE pieces of kit are available.

We have also asked GPs to look at the possibilities of offering digital appointments to provide advice and guidance to patients and potentially to their families. I am confident that we are making every effort to provide for those eventualities.

A number of Members raised the 2020-21 settlement. I hope that we have demonstrated clearly to all Members that we are doing everything possible to give local government the right support and the right resources to respond to this unprecedented crisis. Of course, local authorities have already been put on a strong footing by the outcome of the settlement for next year. The settlement, which I am pleased that the House supported just a few weeks ago, responds to the pressures that councils are facing by providing them with access to the largest increase in core spending power since 2015. CSP will rise from £46.2 billion to £49.1 billion in 2020-21. That is an estimated 4.4% real-terms increase—well above the rate of inflation. In 2020-21, the final settlement makes £1.5 billion of new funding available for adult and children’s social care. That will support local authorities to meet rising demand and recognises the vital role that social care plays in supporting the most vulnerable in our society.

In conclusion, the role of local government in delivering social care and other vital public services has never been more important than it is now and will be in the days and weeks ahead. Through our immediate actions in response to this crisis and the broader work this Government are doing to help local authorities, I am confident that we are giving councils everything they need to deliver the services upon which we and our communities rely. We remain steadfast in our commitment to do whatever it takes to help communities to beat covid-19, safe in the knowledge that, together, we will rise to these challenges. Together we must, and we will, succeed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the statutory and broader local government responsibilities for public services, including social care.